2 views

Uploaded by Edris Salehi Golsefidi

Earthquake engineering

- Remediation View for SAP GRC
- Statistics Guide
- Tutorial 3003
- Sample Exams - Aaec 3401
- Citatie Galiatsatou PAPER 416
- Assignment 4(2) - Engineering Statistics.pdf
- Confidence Level
- Mannes_2012_ Shorn Scalps and Perceptions of Male Dominance
- stats semester project
- want
- management thesis guidelines for students
- Wendorf ReportingStatistics
- 343StatMech_ch1
- PrognosisforGrossMotorFunction.pdf
- HW#1.1
- Dhera Edution Kontrol
- reportonstatisticalanalysis
- 81854 ST Slides
- Tema4_EstimacioIntervals
- 10_HW_Assignment_Biostat.docx

You are on page 1of 385

A DISSERTATION

SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES

OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Laura Eads

October 2013

2013 by Laura Catherine Eads. All Rights Reserved.

Re-distributed by Stanford University under license with the author.

Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/

ii

I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate

in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate

in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Jack Baker

I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate

in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Dimitrios Lignos

Patricia J. Gumport, Vice Provost for Graduate Education

This signature page was generated electronically upon submission of this dissertation in

electronic format. An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file in

University Archives.

iii

Abstract

Life safety and collapse prevention have always been primary goals of earthquake

engineering, but the collapse risk of structures has not been explicitly quantified until

recently. Advances in computational power and the development of models that can more

accurately reproduce the behavior of structural components through failure have made

collapse risk assessment possible. Interest in quantifying the collapse risk has risen

significantly with the advent of performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE),

which considers uncertainties in the seismic hazard and structural response and seeks to

engineer structures so that they achieve a desired level of performance in terms of

expected monetary losses, downtime and casualties. In fact, collapse risk assessment is a

necessary part of the PBEE process as collapse contributes to the expected economic

losses, downtime and casualties resulting from a seismic event.

Collapse risk assessment of a structure involves combining information about the seismic

hazard at the site with the behavior of the structure. Typically an intensity measure (IM)

is used to describe the level of ground motion shaking and quantify the seismic hazard.

The behavior of the structure is then characterized through nonlinear response history

analysis (RHA) by subjecting the structure to many different ground motions at various

intensity levels. A collapse fragility curve, which describes how the probability of

collapse increases as a function of the ground motion intensity, is constructed based on

analysis results and combined with the seismic hazard curve to compute the mean annual

frequency of collapse (c), a powerful collapse risk metric that describes the structures

expected frequency of collapse in a year.

approach on the computed collapse risk, and contributions are made in the following

areas:

Uncertainty in the collapse fragility curve and c due to the number of ground

motions used in RHA is explicitly quantified and evaluated.

iv

A computationally efficient method for predicting c is proposed that limits RHAs

to two intensity levels, and the performance of this method is illustrated using a

case study.

The ability of different IMs to efficiently predict structural response is evaluated,

and reasons why certain IMs are more efficient than others are provided.

The performance of different IMs is evaluated with respect to the reliability of the

collapse risk estimate. Reasons why certain IMs give more reliable estimates are

provided.

Having been identified as a good IM for collapse risk assessment, the spectral

acceleration averaged over a period range (Saavg) is studied extensively using

various structures. Recommendations for period ranges that lead to the maximum

efficiency of this IM in predicting collapse are made based on structural

properties. The effects of the number of periods used and the spacing of these

periods within the period range on the efficiency are also considered.

v

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my advisor, Professor Eduardo Miranda, for his guidance, advice,

and support throughout my graduate studies. I would also like to thank him for his

encouragement, especially over the past year while completing my dissertation. I have

learned a lot from working with him and am grateful for all the attention and time he

devoted to me and my research. I also really appreciated his colorful analogies and the

PS lines of his emails, which often contained bits of encouragement, humor, and/or

comments about the Notre Dame football team.

I would also like to thank Professor Dimitrios Lignos, who served as a co-advisor for this

work. His guidance, advice, support, and encouragement are very much appreciated. I am

especially grateful for his help involving structural modeling and computer programming,

including his assistance with learning OpenSees, and for sharing his solution algorithm

and incremental dynamic analysis computer codes. I really enjoyed working with him,

especially in the early years when we were both in the Blume Center.

The late Professor Helmut Krawinkler also acted as a co-advisor, and I feel very fortunate

that I had the opportunity to work with him and to learn from his wisdom. Though he was

not able to see the completion of this work, his guidance and influence were strongly felt.

Professor Jack Baker also deserves a big thank you for serving on my qualification, oral

defense, and reading committees. I really appreciate his advice and thoughtful comments

that really helped improve the quality of this work. I would also like to thank Professor

Greg Deierlein for being a part of my oral defense committee and Professor Aaron Gitler

for serving as the committee chair.

Thanks to Professor Farzin Zareian for sharing the results from his extensive analysis on

the collapse of generic moment-resisting frame and shear wall structures. Thanks also go

to Professor Curt Haselton for providing and maintaining a website with the results of his

vi

analysis on the collapse of modern reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame

structures. Data from these sources was used throughout the second half of this

dissertation.

I would also like to thank Eve Martinez, Racquel Hagen, Kim Vonner, Jill Nomura, and

Brenda Sampson for their administrative support and assistance throughout my graduate

studies.

This work was funded by a number of sources, including the Shah Family Fellowship, the

John A. Blume Fellowship, and the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation

(NEES) program of the National Science Foundation. This support is gratefully

appreciated and acknowledged.

The students in the Blume Center have helped make my journey through graduate school

a great experience. I learned a lot through our academic interactions and discussions, and

I also enjoyed plenty of our non-academic interactions. In particular, I am grateful for the

special bonds Ive formed with both former and current members of the Miranda research

group. I am also fortunate to have had great officemates throughout the years that have

made day-to-day life in Office 214 very enjoyable.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents and my sister for their support and

encouragement throughout these years. They were truly invaluable.

vii

Contents

Abstract iv

Acknowledgements vi

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Motivation and background ................................................................................... 1

1.2 Objectives and scope ............................................................................................. 2

1.3 Organization .......................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Overview.............................................................................................................. 6

2.2 Previous analytical studies on structural collapse ............................................... 6

2.3 Methods for evaluating collapse risk ................................................................... 19

2.4 Evaluation of different collapse risk metrics ....................................................... 23

2.4.1 Probability of collapse at a specific ground motion intensity ................... 23

2.4.2 Median collapse intensity ......................................................................... 27

2.4.3 Collapse margin ratio ................................................................................ 28

2.4.4 Mean annual frequency of collapse (c) .................................................... 29

2.4.5 Probability of collapse over a given time period ...................................... 33

2.5 Simplified collapse risk assessment..................................................................... 34

2.6 Summary .............................................................................................................. 37

3.1 Overview............................................................................................................. 38

3.2 Site and seismic hazard analysis ......................................................................... 38

3.3 Ground motion selection..................................................................................... 41

3.4 Description of structure and modeling ............................................................... 43

3.4.1 General description of structure ............................................................... 43

viii

3.4.2 General description of model ................................................................... 44

3.4.3 Mass and loading ..................................................................................... 45

3.4.4 Damping................................................................................................... 45

3.4.5 Hysteretic behavior .................................................................................. 46

3.4.6 Definition of collapse ............................................................................... 48

3.5 Simulation and collapse risk results ................................................................... 50

3.6 Influence of the seismic hazard curve ................................................................ 55

of Collapse due to the Number of Ground Motions Considered 63

4.1 Overview............................................................................................................. 63

4.2 Background and literature review ....................................................................... 64

4.3 Confidence intervals on the probability of collapse conditioned on intensity.... 69

4.4 Case study of statistical uncertainty in the collapse risk .................................... 73

4.4.1 Confidence intervals on the collapse fragility curve................................ 74

4.4.2 Confidence intervals on the mean annual frequency of collapse ............. 75

4.5 Proposed method for estimating the mean annual frequency of collapse .......... 76

4.5.1 Method overview ..................................................................................... 77

4.5.2 Description of method.............................................................................. 77

4.5.3 Discussion of method ............................................................................... 79

4.5.4 Evaluation of the method via a case study ............................................... 80

4.6 Summary ............................................................................................................. 95

5.1 Overview ............................................................................................................ 97

5.2 Literature review ................................................................................................ 97

5.3 What causes large displacement increments? ....................................................104

5.4 Factors influencing spectral shape .....................................................................108

5.4.1 Response to individual pulses ..................................................................108

5.4.1.1 Using at-rest initial conditions ..................................................110

5.4.1.2 Effect of initial conditions .....................................................114

ix

5.4.2 Response to a ground motion...................................................................118

5.4.2.1 Peak elastic response of SDOF systems with similar periods ....119

5.4.2.2 Formation of spectral peaks and valleys ....................................122

5.4.2.3 Elastic versus inelastic response.................................................124

5.5 Spectral shape of damaging records ...................................................................126

5.6 Measures of spectral shape .................................................................................138

5.7 Implications for collapse risk assessment ..........................................................150

5.7.1 Influence of SaRatio on collapse risk assessment....................................152

5.7.2 Considering SaRatio in collapse risk assessment ....................................153

5.7.2.1 Full IDA method ........................................................................157

5.7.2.2 Limited stripe analysis................................................................159

5.8 Summary .............................................................................................................163

6.1 Overview.............................................................................................................168

6.2 Background and literature review .......................................................................169

6.3 Spectral acceleration averaged over a period range (Saavg) as an IM .................180

6.3.1 Relationship between Saavg,col, Sa(T1)col and SaRatio...............................181

6.3.2 Why Saavg is more efficient than Sa(T1) in predicting the collapse

intensity ....................................................................................................184

6.3.3 Evaluating the sufficiency of Saavg ..........................................................188

6.3.3.1 Magnitude .........................................................................................190

6.3.3.2 Distance ............................................................................................195

6.3.3.3 Spectral shape measures ...................................................................196

6.3.3.3.1 ...............................................................................................197

6.3.3.3.2 SaRatio ....................................................................................198

6.3.4 Obtaining a hazard curve for Saavg...................................................................................... 200

6.4 Evaluation of different IMs for collapse risk assessment ...................................204

6.4.1 Effects of efficiency and sufficiency .......................................................205

6.4.2 Effect of ground motion selection............................................................215

6.4.2.1 Description of ground motion sets .............................................216

x

6.4.2.2 Collapse risk comparisons ..........................................................219

6.5 Summary .............................................................................................................223

Various Structures for Maximum Efficiency 227

7.1 Overview.............................................................................................................227

7.2 Literature review .................................................................................................227

7.3 Effect of period spacing and number of periods on the value of Saavg ...............229

7.4 Effect of period range used to compute Saavg on the efficiency .........................231

7.4.1 Case study structure .................................................................................232

7.4.1.1 Arithmetic period spacing ..........................................................232

7.4.1.2 Logarithmic period spacing ........................................................241

7.4.2 Generic SDOF systems ............................................................................244

7.4.3 Generic moment-resisting frame structures .............................................248

7.4.3.1 Arithmetic period spacing ..........................................................248

7.4.3.2 Logarithmic period spacing ........................................................255

7.4.3.3 Comparison of period spacing schemes .....................................259

7.4.4 Modern reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame structures .............261

7.4.4.1 Arithmetic period spacing ..........................................................262

7.4.4.2 Logarithmic period spacing ........................................................268

7.4.4.3 Comparison of period spacing schemes .....................................271

7.4.5 Generic shear wall structures ...................................................................273

7.4.5.1 Arithmetic period spacing ..........................................................274

7.4.5.2 Logarithmic period spacing ........................................................281

7.4.5.3 Comparison of period spacing schemes .....................................284

7.5 Summary and discussion ....................................................................................286

8.1 Overview.............................................................................................................296

8.2 Summary of findings and conclusions ................................................................297

8.2.1 Collapse risk assessment ..........................................................................297

xi

8.2.2 Uncertainty in the collapse fragility and mean annual frequency of

collapse ....................................................................................................298

8.2.3 Spectral shape ..........................................................................................300

8.2.4 Intensity measures for predicting collapse ...............................................302

8.2.5 Effect of period range on the efficiency of Saavg .....................................304

8.3 Limitations and suggestions for future work ......................................................307

8.4 Implications for engineering practice ................................................................310

8.5 Concluding remarks ............................................................................................310

B.1 Generic moment-resisting frame structures .......................................................322

B.2 Generic shear wall structures .............................................................................323

B.3 Reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame structures ....................................323

C.1 CS, (1) = 1.7 ground motion set ......................................................................326

C.2 CS, (1) = 1.8 ground motion set ......................................................................329

xii

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Modeling parameters for nonlinear rotational springs used in case study ..... 48

Table 3.2 Locations used in case study .......................................................................... 56

Table 3.3 c values for case study .................................................................................. 58

Table 4.1 Computational effort and level of accuracy when estimating c using the

proposed and IDA methods ........................................................................... 89

Table 5.1 Summary of correlation between collapse intensity and or SaRatio ...........146

Table 5.2 Collapse risk assessment results using different record sets ..........................152

Table 6.1 Summary of dispersion on the collapse fragility curve for Saavg and Sa(T1) .187

Table 6.2 Summary of p-values for the relationship between Saavg,col and earthquake

magnitude .......................................................................................................193

Table 6.3 Summary of p-values for the relationship Saavg,col and distance ....................196

Table 6.4 Summary of p-values for the relationship between Saavg,col and .................198

Table 6.5 Summary of p-values for the relationship between Saavg,col and SaRatio ......199

Table 6.6 Collapse risk metrics for different IMs with the MRCD 137 ground

motion set .......................................................................................................207

Table A.1 Summary of MRCD 137 set ..........................................................................314

Table A.2 Records comprising the MRCD 137 ground motion set ................................314

Table C.1 Records comprising the CS, (T1) = 1.7 ground motion set ..........................327

Table C.2 Records comprising the CS, (T1) = 1.8 ground motion set ..........................331

xiii

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Hypothetical collapse fragility curves for two structures located at the

same site ...................................................................................................... 25

Figure 2.2 Hypothetical structure located at two different sites: (a) collapse fragility

curve; (b) seismic hazard curves that cross at the 2/50 hazard level .......... 26

Figure 2.3 Illustration of c deaggregation process: (a) collapse fragility curve;

(b) numerical derivative of seismic hazard curve; (c) c deaggregation ..... 31

Figure 2.4 Illustration of identifying the contribution to c from a range of

intensities: (a) collapse fragility curve; (b) c deaggregation ..................... 32

Figure 3.1 Map of Bulk Mail site and surrounding faults. Faults controlling the site

hazard at T = 1 s are shown in blue (strike-slip) and red (reverse or

reverse/oblique) while other faults contributing to the hazard are shown

in white. Thin yellow lines denote freeways. ............................................. 39

Figure 3.2 Probabilistic seismic hazard deaggregation for Bulk Mail Site for

Sa(T = 1 s) with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years .................... 40

Figure 3.3 Seismic hazard curve for the Bulk Mail Center site ................................... 41

Figure 3.4 Case-study structure: (a) plan view; (b) elevation view along gridline 4 ... 44

Figure 3.5 Modified Ibarra-Medina-Krawinkler deterioration model and definition

of parameters ............................................................................................... 47

Figure 3.6 First-story drift ratio (IDR1) history under a Chi-Chi ground motion for

various ground motion intensities, illustrating how the IDR limit affects

the collapse intensity ................................................................................... 49

Figure 3.7 Pushover analysis of case study structure: (a) schematic of collapse

mechanism; (b) pushover curve .................................................................. 50

Figure 3.8 IDA curves for each of the 274 records used in the case study. The thick

black line denotes the median Sa(T1) conditioned on the value of

maximum IDR ............................................................................................ 51

xiv

Figure 3.9 Collapse fragility for the case study including individual collapse

intensities and various probability distributions fit to the data. The

lognormal distribution is selected as the best fit to the data. The

lognormal curve is defined by a median collapse intensity of

Sa(T1) = 1.03 g and a lognormal standard deviation of ln = 0.39 .............. 52

Figure 3.10 Case study collapse risk assessment: (a) collapse fragility curve;

(b) slope of the seismic hazard curve; (c) c deaggregation curve .............. 55

Figure 3.11 Seismic hazard curves for Sa(T1) for various locations in the US .............. 57

Figure 3.12 Case study collapse risk assessment for locations throughout the US:

collapse fragility curve in (a) and (b); slopes of the seismic hazard

curves in (c) and (d); c deaggregation curves in (e) and (f). Plots on the

left (i.e., (a) (c) and (e)) pertain to the western US locations while plots

on the right (i.e., (b) (d) and (f)) pertain to the central and eastern US

locations ...................................................................................................... 59

Figure 3.13 Cumulative contribution to c as a function of intensity for: (a) western

US sites; (b) central and eastern US sites. All sites have a collapse risk

of c = 2.0x10-4 and dispersion on the collapse fragility curve of ln = 0.4 61

Figure 4.1 95% binomial confidence intervals for P(C | IM): Wilson score

confidence intervals as a function of pim for different N ........................... 72

Figure 4.2 Realizations of pim for im = 0.74 g with different N: (a) N = 10;

(b) N = 40; (c) N = 274 ............................................................................... 74

Figure 4.3 Collapse fragility curve with 95% confidence intervals on P(C | IM)

based on simulations using the case study results shown for different N ... 75

Figure 4.4 95% confidence intervals for c as a function of N ..................................... 76

Figure 4.5 Relationship between where a given intensity is located on

(a) the collapse fragility curve; (b) the c deaggregation curve;

(c) the cumulative contribution to c curve ................................................. 82

xv

Figure 4.6 Percent error in the mean c of the bootstrap samples with respect to the

true c as a function of the cumulative contribution to c used to select

the intensity levels IM1 and IM2, shown for N = 40 and an initial guess of

the collapse fragility curve of = 0.4 and: (a) = 0.5 g; (b) = 1 g;

(c) = 1.5 g ................................................................................................. 83

Figure 4.7 Error in the mean c of the bootstrap samples with respect to the true

c as a function of N for different intensity levels. The initial guesses of

the collapse fragility curve are = 0.4 and: (a) = 0.5 g; (b) = 1 g;

(c) = 1.5 g. Note: legend entries denote the fraction of cumulative

contribution to c that were used to select IM1 and IM2, respectively. For

example, 0.8, 0.2 means that the intensity with an 80% cumulative

contribution to c was selected for IM1 and the intensity with a 20%

cumulative contribution to c was selected for IM2 .................................... 85

Figure 4.8 Width of the 95% confidence intervals on c, expressed as a percentage

of the true c, as a function of N for different intensity levels. The

initial guesses of the collapse fragility curve are = 0.4 and: (a) =

0.5 g; (b) = 1 g; (c) = 1.5 g .................................................................... 86

Figure 4.9 Comparison of error in the mean c of the bootstrap samples with respect

to the true c as a function of N for different intensity levels for the

case study collapse intensities (solid lines) and exactly lognormal

collapse intensities (dashed lines). The initial guesses of the collapse

fragility curve are = 0.4 and: (a) = 0.5 g; (b) = 1 g; (c) = 1.5 g ...... 87

Figure 4.10 95% confidence intervals on c as a function of the number of RHAs for

the IDA and proposed methods................................................................... 88

xvi

Figure 4.11 Comparison of error in the mean c of the bootstrap samples with respect

to the true c as a function of the total number of response history

analyses used to estimate the collapse fragility curve. Results are shown

when using two or three intensity levels to estimate the collapse

fragility. Intensities with 90% and 20% cumulative contributions to c

are used for IM1 and IM2, respectively. When a third intensity is used, it

is selected as the mean of IM1 and IM2. The initial guesses of the

collapse fragility curve are = 0.4 and: (a) = 0.5 g; (b) = 1 g;

(c) = 1.5 g ................................................................................................. 91

Figure 4.12 Width of the 95% confidence intervals on c, expressed as a percentage

of the true c, as a function of the total number of response history

analyses used to estimate the collapse fragility curve. Results are shown

when using two or three intensity levels to estimate the collapse

fragility. Intensities with 90% and 20% cumulative contributions to c

are used for IM1 and IM2, respectively. When a third intensity is used, it

is selected as the mean of IM1 and IM2. The initial guesses of the

collapse fragility curve are = 0.4 and: (a) = 0.5 g; (b) = 1 g;

(c) = 1.5 g ................................................................................................. 92

Figure 4.13 Collapse risk comparison of case study results from Section 3.5 and

those presented by Eads et al. (2013) for: (a) seismic hazard curve; (b)

collapse fragility curve; (c) c deaggregation.............................................. 93

Figure 4.14 Comparison of error in the mean c of the bootstrap samples with respect

to the true c as a function of N for different intensity levels using the

Eads et al. (2013) case study results. The initial guesses of the collapse

fragility curve are = 0.4 and: (a) = 0.5 g; (b) = 1 g; (c) = 1.5 g. ..... 94

Figure 5.1 TCU110E ground acceleration recording from the 1999 Chi-Chi

earthquake ...................................................................................................109

Figure 5.2 Acceleration pulse with the largest incremental velocity from the

TCU110E record and an equivalent half-sine pulse with same area and

duration .......................................................................................................110

xvii

Figure 5.3 Displacement response spectrum for the equivalent half-sine

acceleration pulse using at-rest initial conditions .......................................111

Figure 5.4 Displacement response and occurrence of peak response for selected

systems subjected to a half-sine acceleration pulse: (a) peak response

transitioning to first local minima; (b) peak response transitioning from

first local minima to end of pulse. ..............................................................112

Figure 5.5 Normalized displacement response spectrum given a half-sine

acceleration pulse and at-rest initial conditions ..........................................113

Figure 5.6 Effect of half-sine pulse amplitude on displacement demands of SDOFs

with at-rest initial conditions: (a) acceleration pulse; (b) normalized

displacement spectrum ................................................................................114

Figure 5.7 Response to a half-sine pulse with different initial conditions:

(a) displacement response of a 2.5-s system; (b) half-sine acceleration

pulse ............................................................................................................115

Figure 5.8 (a)-(e) Peak displacement as a function of pulse arrival time t for various

amplitudes of initial conditions: (a) td/T = 0.1; (b) td/T = 0.3;

(c) td/T = 0.5; (d) td/T = 0.75; (e) td/T = 1.5; (f) initial conditions of the

system as a function of pulse arrival time t.................................................117

Figure 5.9 TCU110E record: (a) displacement response spectrum; (b) Time at

Peak (T@P) spectrum ...............................................................................119

Figure 5.10 TCU110E record: (a) displacement response for systems in the spectral

displacement peak; (b) ground acceleration ...............................................121

Figure 5.11 TCU110E displacement response of systems near the spectral

displacement valley at T = 3.29 s, illustrating the peak displacement

shifting from one local maxima to another as the period changes ..............123

Figure 5.12 Elastic and inelastic displacement response spectra for the TCU110E

record ..........................................................................................................125

Figure 5.13 TCU110E record: (a) displacement history for T = 2.5 s; (b) ground

acceleration .................................................................................................126

xviii

Figure 5.14 Displacement spectra of records producing the 10 lowest and 10 highest

collapse intensities, where records are scaled to a common value of

Sd(T1) ..........................................................................................................127

Figure 5.15 TCU063N record scaled to Sd(T1) = 10 cm: (a) displacement response

spectrum; (b) T@P spectrum; (c) displacement response spectra

including spectra for the pulse with the largest incremental velocity;

(d) ground acceleration history ...................................................................128

Figure 5.16 TCU063N record: (a) 1st story drift ratio history; (b) unscaled ground

acceleration history .....................................................................................130

Figure 5.17 TCU055N record scaled to Sd(T1) = 10 cm: (a) displacement response

spectrum; (b) T@P spectrum; (c) displacement response spectra

including spectra for selected pulse; (d) ground acceleration history .....131

Figure 5.18 Pulse from the TCU055N record and an equivalent half-sine pulse:

(a) ground acceleration; (b) displacement response spectrum ....................132

Figure 5.19 Displacement spectra of the TCU055N record scaled to Sd(T1) = 10 cm,

including two pulse spectra .....................................................................133

Figure 5.20 TCU055N record: (a) 1st story drift ratio history; (b) ground acceleration

history .........................................................................................................134

Figure 5.21 Comparison of displacement spectra for records with the (a) lowest;

(b) median; and (c) highest collapse intensities, where all records are

scaled to the same Sd(T1) ............................................................................135

Figure 5.22 Comparison of spectra for records with similar spectral shapes but

significantly different collapse intensities ..................................................136

Figure 5.23 TCU057N record: (a) 1st story drift ratio history; (b) ground acceleration

history .........................................................................................................137

Figure 5.24 Comparison of pseudo-acceleration spectra for records with the

(a) lowest; (b) median; and (c) highest collapse intensities, where all

records are scaled to the same Sa(T1) .........................................................139

Figure 5.25 Pseudo-acceleration spectra for records scaled to a common value of

Sa(T1) with (a) SaRatio < 1; (b) SaRatio > 1 ..............................................140

xix

Figure 5.26 Pseudo-acceleration spectra for: (a, b) unscaled negative records;

(c, d) unscaled positive records; (e) records scaled to common value of

Sa(T1) ..........................................................................................................142

Figure 5.27 Contour plot of the correlation coefficient () between the natural

logarithm of collapse intensity and the natural logarithm of SaRatio for

the case study as a function of the period range used to compute SaRatio 143

Figure 5.28 Natural log of collapse intensity versus natural log of SaRatio ..................144

Figure 5.29 Natural log of collapse intensity versus (T1) .............................................145

Figure 5.30 Unscaled pseudo-acceleration spectra with predicted spectral shape from

Boore and Atkinson 2008 (BA08) model for selected ground motions:

(a) negative , high Sa(T1)col; (b) neutral , high Sa(T1)col; (c) neutral ,

low Sa(T1)col; (d) positive , low Sa(T1)col...................................................148

Figure 5.31 Natural log of collapse intensity versus ...................................................150

Figure 5.32 SaRatio, computed using a period range from 0.2T1 to 3T1, where

T1 = 1.33 s, as a function of magnitude and distance. SaRatio values are

computed from the CMS based on the BA08 GMPE for an unspecified

fault type and Vs30 = 285 m/s. Different values of (T1) are used to

compute the CMS: (a) (T1) = 0; (b) (T1) = 1; (c) (T1) = 2 ......................154

Figure 5.33 Logistic regression on collapse state and ln(SaRatio) for case study data

at Sa(T1) = 0.7 g ..........................................................................................161

Figure 6.1 Sa(T1)col versus SaRatio with linear regression through the origin .............181

Figure 6.2 Collapse fragility curve for (a) IM = Sa(T1); (b) IM = Saavg. The circles

are the collapse intensities of individual ground motions, and the solid

lines are the lognormal fragility curves obtained using the method of

moments ......................................................................................................183

Figure 6.3 Collapse intensity scatter plots for (a) IM = Sa(T1); (b) IM = Saavg. The

horizontal black line indicates the median value ........................................185

Figure 6.4 ln(Saavg,col) plotted against earthquake magnitude with the ordinary

linear least squares regression of the data ...................................................190

xx

Figure 6.5 Response spectra predicted by BA08 for different magnitudes with Rjb =

12 km, Vs = 285 m/s, and unspecified fault type: (a) unscaled spectra;

(b) spectra scaled to a common value of Saavg (linear Sa(T) axis);

(c) spectra scaled to a common value of Saavg (logarithmic Sa(T) axis).

The dashed vertical lines bracket the period range used to compute Saavg .192

Figure 6.6 p-values for the relationship between magnitude and ln(Saavg,col) or

ln(Sa(T1)col) for the RC MRF case study structures ....................................195

Figure 6.7 ln(Saavg,col) plotted against source-to-site distance with the ordinary

linear least squares regression of the data ...................................................196

Figure 6.8 ln(Saavg,col) plotted against (T1) with the ordinary linear least squares

regression of the data ..................................................................................197

Figure 6.9 ln(Saavg,col) plotted against ln(SaRatio) with the ordinary linear least

squares regression of the data .....................................................................199

Figure 6.10 Collapse risk components for different IMs: Seismic hazard curves for

simplified site: (a) Sa(T1) and Saavg; (b) PGV. Collapse fragility curves

for (c) Sa(T1), Sa(T1) with or SaRatio adjustment, and Saavg; (d) PGV.

c deaggregation curves for (e) Sa(T1), Sa(T1) with or SaRatio

adjustment and Saavg; (f) PGV. ...................................................................206

Figure 6.11 PSHA deaggregation by magnitude with associated (T1) values for

Sa(T1) = 0.72 g, the intensity at the peak of the c deaggregation ..............209

Figure 6.12 Collapse risk components for Sa(T1) illustrating the effects of improved

efficiency and improved GMPE: Seismic hazard curves for simplified

site in (a) and (b); Collapse fragility curves in (c) and (d); c

deaggregation curves in (e) and (f). Plots (a), (c) and (e) illustrate the

effect of improved efficiency while plots (b), (d) and (f) illustrate the

effect of improved GMPE prediction .........................................................212

Figure 6.13 Components influencing the value of lnSaAvg,BA08: (a) values of

lnSa(T),BA08; (b) contour of correlation coefficients between spectral

values at different periods ...........................................................................213

xxi

Figure 6.14 The probability of collapse conditioned on intensity level, P(C|IM),

plotted as a function of IM, the mean annual frequency of exceedance of

the IM level for Saavg and PGV ...................................................................215

Figure 6.15 Geometric mean spectrum of different ground motion sets scaled to a

common value of (a) Sa(T1); (b) Saavg; and (c) PGV. Note the vertical

line in (a) is drawn at T1 = 1.33 s and the horizontal line in (b) denotes

the common value of Saavg over the period range between 0.2T1 and

3T1..............................................................................................................219

Figure 6.16 Summary of collapse risk results for different IMs and different ground

motion sets: (a) median collapse intensity; (b) standard deviation of

collapse intensities, lnIM; (c) mean annual frequency of collapse, c, and

probability of collapse in 50 years, Pc,50 .....................................................221

Figure 7.1 Effect of period spacing scheme and number of periods used to compute

Saavg(0.2, 3) for T1 = 1.33 s: (a) arithmetic spacing; (b) logarithmic

spacing ........................................................................................................230

Figure 7.2 Contour plot of the dispersion (ln) on the collapse intensities measured

by Saavg(a, b) as a function of the a and b values used to compute Saavg

using arithmetic period spacing ..................................................................233

Figure 7.3 Dispersion of collapse intensities measured by Saavg(a, b) using

arithmetic period spacing for the special case of a = b, which is

equivalent to Sa(aT1), as a function of a. ...................................................234

Figure 7.4 Contours of collapse risk estimates measured by Saavg(a, b) as a function

of the a and b values used to compute Saavg: (a) mean annual frequency

of collapse, c, in units of 10-4; (b) probability of collapse in 50 years,

Pc,50, expressed as a percent ........................................................................236

Figure 7.5 Contours of dispersion (ln) on the collapse intensities measured by

Saavg(a, b) as a function of the a and b values used to compute Saavg

using arithmetic period spacing for different ground motion sets:

(a) LMSR-N; (b) Set One; (c) Set #1A, FN/FP; (d) Set #1A, unrotated;

(e) CS, (T1) = 1.7; (f) CS, (T1) = 1.8 ........................................................241

xxii

Figure 7.6 Contours of the dispersion (ln) of the collapse intensities as a function

of the a and b values used to compute Saavg(a, b) for various period

spacing schemes: (a) arithmetic spacing with 100 periods; (b) arithmetic

spacing with 10 periods; (c) logarithmic spacing with 100 periods;

(d) logarithmic spacing with 10 periods .....................................................243

Figure 7.7 Contours of dispersion (ln) on the collapse intensities measured by

Saavg(a, b) as a function of the a and b values used to compute Saavg with

logarithmic period spacing for different ground motion sets: (a) LMSR-

N; (b) Set One; (c) Set #1A, FN/FP; (d) Set #1A, unrotated; (e) CS, (T1)

= 1.7; (f) CS, (T1) = 1.8 .............................................................................244

Figure 7.8 Tri-linear backbone curve used to define SDOF systems. ..........................245

Figure 7.9 Contours of dispersion (ln) on the collapse intensities measured by

Saavg(a, b) as a function of the a and b values used to compute Saavg for

various SDOF systems: (a) T = 0.1 s; (b) T = 0.2 s; (c) T = 0.5 s;

(d) T = 0.75 s; (e) T = 1.0 s; (f) T = 1.5 s; (g) T = 2.0 s; (h) T = 2.5 s;

(i) T = 3.0 s; (j) T = 3.5 s; (k) T = 4.0 s .......................................................247

Figure 7.10 Contours of the dispersion (ln) of the collapse intensities as a function

of the a and b values used to compute Saavg(a, b) using arithmetic period

spacing that are representative of results for generic MRF structures:

(a) 4 story; (b) 8 story; (c) 12 story; (d) 16 story ........................................249

Figure 7.11 Histogram of a* and b* values associated with the minimum dispersion

of Saavg(a, b) using arithmetic period spacing for generic MRF

structures: (a) 4 story; (b) 8 story; (c) 12 story; (d) 16 story ......................250

Figure 7.12 Scatter plot of b* using arithmetic period spacing for all generic MRF

structures .....................................................................................................251

Figure 7.13 b* value associated with the minimum dispersion of Saavg(a, b) as a

function of T1 using arithmetic period spacing for the generic MRF

structures .....................................................................................................252

xxiii

Figure 7.14 Contour plot showing the mean value, based on the 396 generic MRF

structures, of the difference between the dispersion on the collapse

intensities computed using Saavg(a*, b*) versus Saavg(a, b) as a function

of a and b using arithmetic period spacing: (a) difference in absolute

terms; (b) difference normalized by the dispersion based on

Saavg(a*, b*). ...............................................................................................253

Figure 7.15 Scatter plot of dispersion in collapse intensities computed using Saavg

with arithmetic period spacing for the 396 generic MRF structures for

different computations of Saavg(a, b): (a) Saavg(a*, b*) vs.

Saavg(0, b:reg); (b) Saavg(a*, b*) vs. Saavg(0, 3); (c) Saavg(0, 3) vs.

Saavg(0, b:reg). Note that b:reg is the b value obtained from the

regression based on T1 shown in Figure 7.13 ..............................................254

Figure 7.16 Contours of the dispersion (ln) of the collapse intensities as a function

of the a and b values used to compute Saavg(a, b) for logarithmic period

spacing that are representative of results for generic MRF structures:

(a) 4 story; (b) 8 story; (c) 12 story; (d) 16 story ........................................256

Figure 7.17 Histogram of a* and b* values associated with the minimum dispersion

of Saavg(a, b) using logarithmic period spacing for generic MRF

structures: (a) 4 story; (b) 8 story; (c) 12 story; (d) 16 story ......................257

Figure 7.18 Relationship between the a* and b* values associated with the minimum

dispersion of Saavg(a, b) obtained using logarithmic period spacing and

T1 for the generic MRF structures: (a) a* and T1; (b) b* and T1 .................258

Figure 7.19 Scatter plot of dispersion in collapse intensities computed using Saavg

with logarithmic period spacing for the 396 generic MRF structures for

different computations of Saavg(a, b): (a) Saavg(a*, b*) vs.

Saavg(a:reg, b:reg); (b) Saavg(a*, b*) vs. Saavg(0.2, 9); (c) Saavg(0.2, 9) vs.

Saavg(a:reg, b:reg). Note that a:reg and b:reg are the a and b values,

respectively, obtained from the regression based on T1 shown in

Figure 7.18 ..................................................................................................259

xxiv

Figure 7.20 Comparison of the overall minimum dispersion, lnSaAvg(a*,b*), achieved

with logarithmic versus arithmetic period spacing for the 396 generic

MRF structures............................................................................................260

Figure 7.21 Comparison of the dispersion, lnSaAvg(a,b), achieved with logarithmic

versus arithmetic period spacing for the 396 generic MRF structures

using: (a) Saavg(0.2, 9) for logarithmic spacing versus Saavg(0, 3) for

arithmetic spacing; (b) Saavg(0.2, 9) for logarithmic spacing versus

Saavg(0, b:reg) for arithmetic spacing. Note that b:reg is the b value

obtained from the regression based on T1 shown in Figure 7.13 ................261

Figure 7.22 Contours of the dispersion (ln) of the collapse intensities as a function

of the a and b values used to compute Saavg(a, b) using arithmetic period

spacing that are representative of results for RC MRF structures: (a) 1

story; (b) 2 story; (c) 4 story; (d) 8 story; (e) 12 story; (f) 20 story ............263

Figure 7.23 Scatter plot of a* and b* using arithmetic period spacing for all RC

MRF structures............................................................................................264

Figure 7.24 b* value associated with the minimum dispersion of Saavg(a, b) as a

function of T1 using arithmetic period spacing for the RC MRF

structures .....................................................................................................265

Figure 7.25 Contour plot showing the mean value, based on the 30 RC MRF

structures, of the difference between the dispersion on the collapse

intensities computed using Saavg(a*, b*) versus Saavg(a, b) as a function

of a and b using arithmetic period spacing: (a) difference in absolute

terms; (b) difference normalized by the dispersion based on Saavg(a*, b*) 266

Figure 7.26 Scatter plot of dispersion in collapse intensities computed using Saavg for

the 30 RC MRF structures for different computations of Saavg(a, b) using

arithmetic period spacing: (a) Saavg(a*, b*) vs. Saavg(0, b:reg);

(b) Saavg(a*, b*) vs. Saavg(0, 3.5); (c) Saavg(0, 3.5) vs. Saavg(0, b:reg).

Note that b:reg is the b value obtained from the regression based on T1

shown in Figure 7.24...................................................................................268

xxv

Figure 7.27 Contours of the dispersion (ln) of the collapse intensities as a function

of the a and b values used to compute Saavg(a, b) using logarithmic

period spacing that are representative of results for RC MRF structures:

(a) 1 story; (b) 2 story; (c) 4 story; (d) 8 story; (e) 12 story; (f) 20 story ...269

Figure 7.28 Relationship between the a* and b* values associated with the minimum

dispersion of Saavg(a, b) obtained using logarithmic period spacing and

T1 for the 30 RC MRF structures: (a) a* and T1; (b) b* and T1 ..................270

Figure 7.29 Comparison of the dispersion, lnSaAvg(a,b), achieved with logarithmic

period spacing for the 30 RC MRF structures for different computations

of Saavg(a, b) using arithmetic period spacing: (a) Saavg(a*, b*) vs.

Saavg(a:reg, b:reg); (b) Saavg(a*, b*) vs. Saavg(0.4, 9); (c) Saavg(0.4, 9) vs.

Saavg(a:reg, b:reg). Note that a:reg and b:reg are the a and b values

obtained from the regressions based on T1 shown in Figure 7.28 ...............271

Figure 7.30 Comparison of the dispersion, lnSaAvg(a,b), achieved with logarithmic

versus arithmetic period spacing for the 30 RC MRF structures using: (a)

the overall minimum dispersion; (b) period-independent (rigid)

recommendations of Saavg(0.4, 9) for logarithmic spacing versus

Saavg(0, 3.5) for arithmetic spacing; (c) regression-based values of

Saavg(a:reg, b:reg). Note that a:reg and b:reg are the a and b values,

respectively, obtained from the regressions based on T1 shown in Figure

7.24 for arithmetic spacing and in Figure 7.28 for logarithmic spacing.

Also note that for arithmetic spacing a:reg = 0 ..........................................273

Figure 7.31 Contours of the dispersion (ln) of the collapse intensities as a function

of the a and b values used to compute Saavg(a, b) using arithmetic period

spacing that are representative of results for generic shear wall

structures: (a) 4 story; (b) 8 story; (c) 12 story; (d) 16 story ......................275

Figure 7.32 Histogram of a* and b* values associated with the minimum dispersion

of Saavg(a, b) for generic shear wall structures using arithmetic period

spacing: (a) 4 story; (b) 8 story; (c) 12 story; (d) 16 story..........................276

Figure 7.33 Scatter plot of b* for all generic shear wall structures using arithmetic

period spacing .............................................................................................277

xxvi

Figure 7.34 b* value associated with the minimum dispersion of Saavg(a, b) using

arithmetic period spacing as a function of T1 for the generic shear wall

structures .....................................................................................................278

Figure 7.35 Contour plot showing the mean value, based on the 252 generic shear

wall structures, of the difference between the dispersion on the collapse

intensities computed using Saavg(a*, b*) versus Saavg(a, b) as a function

of a and b for arithmetic period spacing: (a) difference in absolute terms;

(b) difference normalized by the dispersion based on Saavg(a*, b*) ...........279

Figure 7.36 Scatter plot of dispersion in collapse intensities computed using Saavg

with arithmetic period spacing for the 252 generic shear wall structures

for different computations of Saavg(a, b): (a) Saavg(a*, b*) vs.

Saavg(0, b:reg); (b) Saavg(a*, b*) vs. Saavg(0, 6); (c) Saavg(0, 6) vs.

Saavg(0, b:reg). Note that b:reg is the b value obtained from the

regression based on T1 shown in Figure 7.34 ..............................................281

Figure 7.37 Contours of the dispersion (ln) of the collapse intensities as a function

of the a and b values used to compute Saavg(a, b) with logarithmic period

spacing that are representative of results for generic shear wall

structures: (a) 4 story; (b) 8 story; (c) 12 story; (d) 16 story ......................282

Figure 7.38 Relationship between the a* and b* values associated with the minimum

dispersion of Saavg(a, b) obtained using logarithmic period spacing and

T1 for the 252 generic shear wall structures: (a) a* and T1; (b) b* and T1 ..283

Figure 7.39 Scatter plot of the dispersion in collapse intensities computed using Saavg

with logarithmic period spacing for the 252 generic shear wall structures

for different computations of Saavg(a, b): (a) Saavg(a*, b*) vs.

Saavg(a:reg, b:reg); (b) Saavg(a*, b*) vs. Saavg(0.7,15); (c) Saavg(0.7,15)

vs. Saavg(a:reg, b:reg). Note that a:reg and b:reg are the a and b values,

respectively, obtained from the regression based on T1 shown in

Figure 7.38 ..................................................................................................284

xxvii

Figure 7.40 Comparison of the dispersion, lnSaAvg(a,b), achieved with logarithmic

versus arithmetic period spacing for the 252 generic shear wall

structures using: (a) the overall minimum dispersion; (b) period-

independent (rigid) recommendations of Saavg(0.7, 15) for logarithmic

spacing versus Saavg(0, 6) for arithmetic spacing; (c) regression-based

values of Saavg(a:reg, b:reg). Note that a:reg and b:reg are the a and b

values, respectively, obtained from the regressions based on T1 shown in

Figure 7.34 for arithmetic spacing and in Figure 7.38 for logarithmic

spacing. Also note that for arithmetic spacing a:reg = 0 ............................285

Figure A.1 Magnitudes and distances of records in the MRCD 137 set .......................313

Figure A.2 Response spectra of records in the MRCD 137 set with the median

spectrum denoted by the thick black line ....................................................313

Figure C.1 Comparison of the target CS and the selected ground motions:

(a) geometric mean spectral values; (b) logarithmic standard deviation of

spectral values .............................................................................................326

Figure C.2 Response spectra of ground motions in the CS, (T1)= 1.7 set ...................327

Figure C.3 Comparison of the target CS and the selected ground motions:

(a) geometric mean spectral values; (b) logarithmic standard deviation of

spectral values .............................................................................................330

Figure C.4 Response spectra of ground motions in the CS, (1) = 1.8 set ..................330

xxviii

Chapter 1

Introduction

Life safety and collapse prevention have always been primary goals of earthquake

engineering. Until recently this protection against collapse was not explicitly quantified

but instead was assumed to be sufficient for structures designed to standards specified by

building codes. Advances in computational power and the development of models that

can more accurately reproduce the behavior of structural components through failure

have made collapse risk assessment possible. With the advent of performance-based

earthquake engineering (PBEE), which considers uncertainties in the seismic hazard and

structural response and seeks to engineer structures so that they achieve a desired level of

performance in terms of expected monetary losses, downtime and casualties (e.g.,

Krawinkler and Miranda 2004; Deierlein 2004), collapse risk assessment has become

increasingly important. In fact, it is a necessary part of the PBEE methodology as

collapse contributes to the expected economic losses, downtime and casualties resulting

from a seismic event.

Though collapse risk assessment is possible it is not widely performed, partially due to

the computational demands. Even when considering a single seismic event or ground

motion intensity level, the response of a given structure can vary widely due to inherent

variability from one ground motion to the next. This means that analyzing the structure

using many ground motions is often required to accurately predict the response.

Quantifying the structural response to different seismic events or ground motion intensity

levels can require hundreds of dynamic, nonlinear response analyses. There are also

many uncertainties involved in the risk assessment process (e.g., uncertainty in seismic

hazard or structural properties), and considering the effect of these uncertainties can

further add to the computational effort.

1

Chapter 1: Introduction 2

In recent years some design guidelines have started providing information regarding the

expected performance of a structure as it relates to collapse. For example, ASCE 7-10

(ASCE 2010, Table C1.3.1b) provides the anticipated maximum probability of collapse

conditioned on a given level of ground motion intensity for structures designed according

to these guidelines. ASCE 7-10 also targets a 1% probability of collapse in 50 years when

determining the spectral values used in design. Recent studies such as those by Haselton

and Deierlein (2007, Chapter 6) have shown, however, that even buildings designed for

the same site using the same code, materials, and structural system can have strikingly

different collapse risks due to variances in design decisions (e.g., structural layout or the

distribution of strength and stiffness over the height). This means that without some type

of analysis the collapse risk of a particular structure remains largely unknown.

This dissertation focuses on seismic collapse risk assessment of buildings and evaluates

the effects of ground motion intensity measure (IM) selection, which is used to quantify

the seismic hazard and predict the structural response, and computational approach on the

computed risk. The main objectives of this research are:

(1) To evaluate different metrics for quantifying the collapse risk and to describe the

advantages and disadvantages of each metric.

(2) To examine and quantify the uncertainty in the collapse fragility, which describes

the probability of collapse conditioned on ground motion intensity, and the mean

annual frequency of collapse (c) due to the number of ground motions considered

in structural response analysis.

(3) To develop efficient and reliable procedures for estimating the collapse risk.

(4) To explain why certain IMs are able to predict structural response better (i.e.,

more efficiently) than others.

(5) To evaluate the performance of different IMs with respect to predicting the

collapse risk. Particular focus is given to the efficiency and sufficiency of the IM

and how these properties affect the computed collapse risk.

Chapter 1: Introduction 3

(6) To study spectral acceleration averaged over a period range (Saavg) as an IM and

provide recommendations on the period ranges that maximize the efficiency of

the IM for different structures.

Though there are different types of structural collapse, this dissertation focuses on

collapse due to seismic events and in particular the sidesway mode of collapse in which

the lateral displacement of a story or number of stories due to P- effects and component

deterioration causes dynamic instability. This is opposed to other types of collapse such

as loss of vertical carrying capacity or progressive collapse, which can occur when

structural elements are effectively removed due to blast-type loading.

As previously mentioned there are many sources of uncertainty in the collapse risk

assessment process, including uncertainty in the seismic hazard, structural response, and

structural modeling (e.g., material strengths or choice of hysteretic behavior). This

dissertation primarily focuses on uncertainty in the collapse fragility and c estimates

arising from the number of ground motions used in structural analysis, which is

sometimes known as statistical uncertainty. The effects of record-to-record variability,

which are related to the former, are also examined; however, the effects of modeling

uncertainty when estimating the seismic hazard and defining the structural model are not

considered (i.e., expected/mean seismic hazard curves are used and only a single model is

used for a given structure).

The discussion of collapse risk metrics and the uncertainty in the collapse fragility due to

the number of ground motions considered as well as the procedures for estimating the

collapse risk are general to any type of structure. The discussion focused on the IMs can

be structure-specific, however. In particular, the period range that maximizes the

efficiency of Saavg can vary between structures. This dissertation focuses on low- to mid-

rise (i.e., one to twenty story), medium period range (i.e., fundamental period between

0.5 s and 3.2 s) structures whose lateral force-resisting systems are either moment-

resisting frames or shear walls that fail in flexure.

Chapter 1: Introduction 4

1.3 Organization

This dissertation addresses topics related to seismic collapse risk assessment, focusing on

how the IM selection and computational approach affect the efficiency and reliability of

the computed collapse risk estimate.

begins with an in-depth review of the current state of knowledge in analytical collapse

simulation and describes two methods for evaluating collapse risk: a fully probabilistic

method and an IM-based method. Different collapse risk metrics are presented and

compared with respect to their advantages and disadvantages. Finally, the chapter

presents an overview of selected simplified methods used in assessing the collapse risk of

structures.

Chapter 3 presents a complete collapse risk assessment of a case study structure. Details

of this case study including site characteristics, ground motion selection, structural

properties, and modeling assumptions are discussed in depth as this case study is used

throughout the dissertation. In addition to evaluating of the collapse risk of the structure,

the deaggregation of the collapse risk by intensity level is presented, and the use of this

type of analysis is described. The effect of the shape of the seismic hazard curve on the

deaggregation is investigated using example sites from the western and central/eastern

Unites States.

Chapter 4 focuses on the statistical uncertainty in the collapse fragility and the mean

annual frequency of collapse (c) stemming from the number of ground motions used to

predict the structural response. Theoretical confidence intervals on the probability of

collapse conditioned on ground motion intensity are presented as well as confidence

intervals on the collapse fragility and c for the case study described in Chapter 3 that are

created from bootstrap (repeated, random sampling) techniques. A novel method for

estimating the collapse risk based on two intensity levels is also proposed. The premise of

this method is that, for an equivalent amount of computational effort, a better (less

uncertain) estimate of the collapse risk can be obtained by considering more ground

Chapter 1: Introduction 5

motions at fewer intensity levels compared to using many intensity levels but fewer

ground motions at each level. The proposed method is illustrated using a case study.

Chapter 5 investigates the relationship between spectral shape and structural response,

focusing on identifying the features of a ground motion that make it particularly

damaging to a certain structure. This is approached through a number of methods

including the investigation of individual terms of the equation of motion, the response of

a system to a half-sine acceleration pulse, the peak displacement response of a system to

a ground motion, and the investigation of the spectral shape of damaging records.

Damaging records are identified for the case study presented in Chapter 3. A metric for

quantifying the spectral shape of a record is identified, and it is shown to be strongly

correlated with the intensity to which a record must be scaled in order to produce collapse

in a given structure. Methods for incorporating this metric in collapse risk assessment

analyses are discussed.

Chapter 6 evaluates the performance of different IMs in predicting the collapse risk of a

structure. Properties of the IM such as efficiency, sufficiency, and the ability to compute

hazard information are discussed, and these properties are evaluated for an IM that

measures the average spectral acceleration over a period range (Saavg). Nearly 700

structures are used to evaluate the performance of Saavg and to compare its properties to

those of more traditional IMs. Finally, the collapse risk predictions computed by different

IMs are evaluated using a case study structure with different ground motion sets.

Chapter 7 builds on the analysis of Saavg presented in Chapter 6 by identifying the period

ranges that maximize the efficiency of this IM. Nearly 700 structures are used to

determine the influence of structural properties on the optimum period range. The

number of periods used to compute Saavg and the spacing of periods within the period

range are also considered.

Chapter 8 presents the summary and major conclusions of this dissertation. It also

describes the limitations of the present study and provides suggestions for future work.

Chapter 2

2.1 Overview

This chapter explores various methods of quantifying the collapse risk of a structure due

to seismic excitations. It begins with a review of analytical research on structural collapse

focused primarily on the sidesway mode of collapse in which the lateral displacement of

a story or number of stories due to P- effects and component deterioration causes

dynamic instability. This is opposed to other types of collapse such as loss of vertical

carrying capacity or progressive collapse, which can occur when structural elements are

effectively removed due to blast-type loading. The review of analytical research on

collapse builds on existing literature reviews provided by Ibarra and Krawinkler (2005,

Section 2.2) and Villaverde (2007). The chapter then then discusses various approaches

for evaluating the collapse risk. Different metrics used to quantify collapse risk are also

presented, and the advantages and disadvantages of each metric are discussed.

Some of the earliest analytical research on structural collapse focused on collapse in

single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems due to geometric nonlinearities (P- effects)

in which the effect of gravity load P acting on the displaced structure is considered. One

of the first studies was performed by Jennings and Husid (1968) who investigated the

time required to produce collapse in SDOFs. Though the systems had positive post-yield

stiffness, incorporation of P- effects effectively created a negative post-yield stiffness

that permitted collapse. They found that the time to collapse was strongly related to the

height of the structure, the yield strength, and the post-yield stiffness. Sun et al. (1973)

studied elasto-plastic SDOFs and found that the collapse of a structure is directly related

to its yield displacement and stability coefficient (the ratio of the gravity load P to the

product of lateral stiffness and the height of the structure). Takizawa and Jennings (1980)

examined the collapse intensity of SDOFs and studied the effects of ground motion

6

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 7

duration. This was one of the earliest studies to investigate collapse under the combined

effects of P- and material degradation. They used SDOFs with a trilinear force-

displacement backbone curve to represent the pre-cracked, cracked/pre-yield, and post-

yield behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) frame structures. The post-yield region was

characterized by constant strength; however, they also considered a quadrilinear force-

displacement backbone curve in which the fourth region had negative stiffness to

represent the loss in strength due to spalling and crushing of concrete at large

deformations. The authors found that including the strength-loss region significantly

reduced the collapse intensity.

Other studies that investigated the collapse of non-deteriorating SDOFs (i.e., SDOFs

without cyclic deterioration of strength or stiffness) due to P- effects include those by

Bernal (1992), Kanvinde (2003), Vian and Bruneau (2003), Miranda and Akkar (2003),

and Adam and Jger (2012a), although in these studies the SDOF is intended to serve as a

proxy to a multiple-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) system. Bernal (1992) used elasto-plastic

SDOFs and SDOFs with stiffness-degrading hysteretic behavior to develop expressions

for the minimum base shear required to prevent collapse under a given ground motion as

a function of the structural properties (the period and stability coefficient) and ground

motion properties (peak ground velocity or displacement and duration). Kanvinde (2003)

tested 19 steel frame SDOF systems to collapse on a shake table and showed that

analytical models could accurately and reliably predict the results. He used concentrated

plasticity elements with the Giufr-Menegotto-Pinto hysteretic model, which uses a

nonlinear hardening law. His experimental tests complemented those by Vian and

Bruneau (2003), who tested 15 steel frame SDOF systems to collapse on a shake table.

Vian and Bruneau found that the stability coefficient was strongly related to the structural

performance. Miranda and Akkar (2003) computed probabilistic estimates of collapse for

SDOFs with bilinear force-displacement backbones and negative post-yield stiffness by

using a relative intensity measure defined as the ratio of the lateral strength required for

the system to remain elastic to the minimum lateral strength required to avoid dynamic

instability under a given record. They developed expressions for the mean collapse

strength ratio of a system and quantified the record-to-record variability as a function of

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 8

its period and the ratio of post-yield stiffness to elastic stiffness. More recently, Adam

and Jger (2012a) used SDOFs with bilinear force-displacement backbones to develop

expressions for median collapse capacity spectra as a function of period, effective post-

yield stiffness, damping, and hysteretic behavior.

Chopra et al. (1973), Osteraas and Krawinkler (1990), Ger et al. (1993), Challa and Hall

(1994), and Gupta and Krawinkler (1999). Chopra et al. (1973) studied the collapse of the

Olive View Medical Center main building during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake.

Using a two-dimensional (2D) model, the authors represented the moment-curvature

relationships of concrete members using a bilinear hysteretic model with a yield stiffness

equal to 3% of the initial elastic stiffness. They were able to reproduce some of the

observed damage when analyzing the model using a simulated ground motion; however,

the computed displacements were smaller than those imposed by the earthquake. The

authors attributed the discrepancies to use of a simulated ground motion in place of the

actual ground motion at the site, which is unknown, and the redistribution of forces

caused by failure of elements very early in the earthquake that were not included in the

model. They concluded that the severity of the ground motion and the termination of

shear walls below the second floor, which caused a large change in strength and stiffness,

were the major reasons for the severe damage. Both Osteraas and Krawinkler (1990) and

Ger et al. (1993) studied the collapse of a 22-story structure in the Pino Suarez complex

during in the 1985 Mexico City earthquake. Osteraas and Krawinkler (1990) analyzed a

2D model using a portion of the recorded ground acceleration and duplicated the

observed failure mode of the building. The model included inelastic springs that

represented the buckling of truss girder webs as well as hysteric models representing the

buckling of braces and the 4th-story columns. They studied the effects of different

modeling assumptions (e.g., stiff vs. flexible, different post-buckling residual strengths,

and the strength of girder-to-column connections) and found that the inelastic response

was highly dependent on the post-buckling behavior of the columns. Ger et al. (1993)

used a three-dimensional structural model and subjected it to the recorded ground

motions from that earthquake using two orthogonal horizontal acceleration components

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 9

as well as the vertical component. The hysteretic models capture strength loss in the

beams and the effects of local buckling on the axial and flexural response of the columns

as well as the axial response of brace elements. Only when including the effects of both

local buckling in the columns and ductile failures in the beams do the authors obtain

results consistent with field observations of identical buildings near the collapsed

structure. Challa and Hall (1994) examined the performance of a code-conforming, 20-

story steel moment-resisting frame (MRF) and used fiber sections to model the beams

and columns in a 2D model. The hysteretic model consisted of strain-shifting backbone

curves that included some strength degradation after reaching the ultimate strength, and

the cyclic behavior was governed by elliptical unloading and reloading curves. They

found that very severe ground motions were required to collapse the structure; however,

they noted that structural deterioration, which was not included, could be a very

important factor affecting the response of the structure. Gupta and Krawinkler (1999,

Chapter 4) also evaluated performance of a 20-story steel MRF designed according to the

1994 Uniform Building Code (UBC 1994) using a 2D model. Nonlinear behavior was

represented with concentrated plasticity elements, and all inelastic elements had a bilinear

force-displacement backbone with 3% strain-hardening. The authors found that the

structure was potentially susceptible to collapse due to P- effects and that the structural

response was sensitive to modeling assumptions (e.g., inclusion of panel zones and the

effects of slabs and interior gravity framing). They also stressed the importance of using

hysteretic models that capture strength and stiffness degradation to better assess the

structural response at large deformations.

Song and Ellingwood (1999b; 1999a) studied the seismic reliability of special steel

moment frames with welded connections, with a particular focus on the effects of

connection fractures and modeling uncertainty associated with the hysteric behavior and

other structural properties including the yield strength of beams and columns and level of

damping. They modeled a 4-story building in California designed in 1985 and used a

bilinear hysteric model for columns, both bilinear and degrading hysteretic models for the

beams, and a degrading hysteretic model for the connections. Using a set of simulated

and recorded ground motions, they found that the probability of incipient collapse

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 10

(defined as exceeding an interstory drift ratio or roof drift ratio of 5%) estimates were

significantly affected by whether a bilinear or degrading hysteric model was assumed for

the connection behavior. The authors found that the onset of connection cracking and the

reduced capacity of the connection were the two parameters of the connection model that

had the greatest influence on structural response but that the uncertainty in hysteresis was

small compared to the uncertainty in ground motions, with the recorded ground motions

producing more variation in structural response than the simulated motions. The authors

found that the annual probability of incipient collapse was on the order of 10-4.

Sivaselvan and Reinhorn (2002; 2006) and Sivaselvan et al. (2009) have applied

Lagrangian or mixed Lagrangian formulations to analyze the collapse behavior of

structures. Using a case study of a portal frame subjected to dynamic loads, Sivaselvan

and Reinhorn (2006) demonstrated that the Lagrangian formulation can produce

significantly different vertical displacements than the more traditional displacement-

based solutions. The authors also noted that the Lagrangian formulation is particularly

powerful when determining the redistribution of forces and momentum in a structure

when individual elements collapse. Sivaselvan et al. (2009) demonstrated that the

collapse behavior of a case study structure with elasto-plastic members subjected to an

earthquake could be captured using a relatively large time step (0.02 s) based on the fact

that the behavior converged to what was predicted using time step ten times smaller

(0.002 s). Lavan et al. (2009) extended the mixed Lagrangian formulation to account for

strength degradation and fracture, and they demonstrated that the method was stable and

that the results of fracture simulations converged even when using a relatively large time

step.

Lee and Foutch (2002) evaluated the global drift capacity of structures under a set of

ground motions using incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) (Vamvatsikos and Cornell

2002). IDA involved repeating nonlinear response history analyses using increasing

levels of ground motion intensity until collapse occurs. The hysteretic model governing

bending in the beams was based on a trilinear force-displacement backbone including a

negative stiffness region. The authors defined collapse as: (1) dynamic instability when

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 11

the drift increases without bounds; or (2) the point at which the slope of the IDA curve

(the plot of ground motion intensity versus maximum drift) becomes less than 20% of the

slope from elastic analysis; or (3) the point when the maximum drift reaches 0.10, beyond

which confidence in the results of the analytical model are questionable. They analyze

structures of 3, 9, and 20 stories, but only the 20-story structure experiences collapse

before the drift limit of 0.10. They find that the median global drift capacity of the 20-

story structure is 0.08 with a logarithmic standard deviation of 0.26 when using W24

columns. Jalayer (2003, Chapter 4) also uses the IDA approach to compute the global

drift capacity of a 7-story reinforced concrete frame structure in a probabilistic format.

The nonlinear behavior is represented by rotational and translational (shear) springs that

capture degradation in strength and stiffness. She defines collapse as the point at which

the slope of the IDA curve becomes less than 20% of the elastic slope. The global drift

capacity is combined with a drift hazard curve based on seismic hazard data at the site to

compute the mean annual frequency of exceeding the global drift capacity.

Medina and Krawinkler (2003, Chapter 9) also used IDA to evaluate the collapse

performance of a structure under a set of records. The structure is an 18-story frame that

does not include any cyclic strength or stiffness deterioration. Unlike the other studies,

they define the collapse capacity of the structure in terms of the ground motion intensity

(not the drift level) at which collapse occurs. They measure the ground motion intensity

by Sa(T1), the spectral acceleration at the structures first-mode period. They describe the

collapse capacities via a collapse fragility curve, which is a lognormal cumulative

probability distribution fit to the collapse intensities of all records in the ground motion

set and describes the probability of collapse conditioned on the ground motion intensity.

The collapse fragility curve concept is also discussed by Ibarra et al. (2002). The collapse

fragility data is combined with seismic hazard data describing the mean annual frequency

of exceeding the ground motion intensity to give the mean annual frequency of collapse

(c). This method of computing the collapse risk is outlined more formally by Ibarra and

Krawinkler (2005, Chapter 7). It should be noted that the former reference was originally

published in the same year as the Medina and Krawinkler study as (Ibarra 2003).

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 12

Ibarra and Krawinkler made significant contributions to the collapse risk assessment of

structural systems. They developed a hysteretic model that captured basic modes of

cyclic strength and stiffness deterioration and was calibrated based on experimental

component tests (Ibarra and Krawinkler 2005; Ibarra et al. 2005, Chapter 3; Ibarra et al.

2005). The model was based on a quadrilinear backbone curve including elastic, strain-

hardening, post-capping (strength loss), and residual strength regions. Deterioration

modes include basic strength and post-capping deterioration as well as unloading and

accelerated reloading stiffness deterioration. This hysteretic model is referred to as the

Ibarra-Medina-Krawinkler (IMK) model. Ibarra and Krawinkler (2005, Chapter 6; 2011)

also examined the effect of both record-to-record (RTR) variability and modeling

uncertainty (i.e., uncertainty in parameters of the hysteretic model) on the collapse risk.

They found that incorporating modeling uncertainty could increase c by 50% to 100%

compared to only considering RTR variability and that the capping displacement and

post-capping stiffness had very significant contributions to modeling uncertainty.

collapse risk assessment is discussed by Zareian and Krawinkler (2007a), which involves

using an estimate of the dispersion on median collapse intensity due to epistemic

uncertainty to either shift (decrease) the median collapse intensity or to inflate the

dispersion on the median collapse intensity. Liel et al. (2009) also studied the effect of

modeling uncertainty on collapse risk assessment using both first-order, second-moment

(FOSM) methods and more complicated Monte Carlo sampling with a response surface.

They propose an approximate method for incorporating modeling uncertainty based on

balancing the relative computational efficiency of FOSM with the more accurate but

computationally demanding response surface method. Dolek (2009) proposed using

Monte Carlo simulation with Latin hypercube sampling (LHS) to reduce the

computational demands in estimating the uncertainty in collapse predictions due to

modeling uncertainty.

Vamvatsikos and Fragiadakis (2010) assessed the seismic performance of a case study

structure when incorporating modeling uncertainty using three approaches: Monte Carlo

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 13

simulation with LHS, point estimates, and FOSM. They found that point-estimate and

FOSM methods could allow accurate performance estimates compared to the more

computationally demanding Monte Carlo simulation with LHS up to maximum interstory

drift ratios of 5%, but they observed that the median IDA curves computed by former two

methods tended to oscillate at higher drift ratios and predict smaller collapse intensities

than the LHS method. They also found that the performance estimates could be very

sensitive to the uncertainty in the ultimate rotational ductility of the beam elements,

which were the only elements that experienced nonlinear behavior in their particular case

study. They observed that while the median collapse intensity found using the mean

(deterministic) values of model parameters was larger than the median collapse intensity

found when considering modeling uncertainty, the difference was only 10%. Finally, they

observed that the overall uncertainty in the response (which considers both RTR

variability and modeling uncertainty) found directly from the Monte Carlo results was

generally well approximated by the square-root-of-the-sum-of-the-squares approach for

combining RTR variability and modeling uncertainty, especially when the maximum

interstory drift ratio exceeded 10%.

Haselton and Deierlein (2007) performed collapse risk assessments for modern, code-

conforming (ASCE 2005; ICC 2005; ACI 2005) RC MRFs designed for California, while

Liel and Deierlein (2008) did the same for older, non-ductile RC frames that represented

typical structures built between 1950 and 1975 in California. The authors used a portfolio

of buildings with a variety of structural configurations, number of stories, design

decisions, etc. and assessed how these differences affected the collapse risk. Haselton and

Deierlein found that the average c was 3x10-4 for modern, code-conforming structures

while Liel and Deierlein found that the average c was 40 times greater for older, non-

ductile structures. Both studies simulated nonlinear behavior via concentrated plasticity

elements that used the IMK deterioration model. Haselton and Deierlein (2007, Chapter

4) calibrated parameters of the deterioration model based on a series of 255 experimental

tests on RC columns and developed predictive equations of the model parameters based

on regression of these results.

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 14

Ellingwood et al. (2007) studied the seismic fragilities of low- to mid-rise steel and RC

MRFs representative of structures in the central and eastern United States, which

typically are designed primarily for gravity and wind resistance. They modeled four

structures: two steel and two RC. For the steel MRFs nonlinear behavior was represented

by distributed plasticity elements with a bilinear hysteretic response and 3% strain

hardening for steel members and, in one of the steel frames, a hysteretic model for the

partially restrained (PR) connections characterized by a decreasing strength region

following capping. The RC MRF models used fiber sections for the beams and columns

and a beam-column joint model that represented the effects of joint shear and bond-slip.

Using simulated ground motions, they concluded that while steel MRFs with PR

connections may not collapse at substantial ground motion intensities, the RC MRFs may

not survive the design-basis ground motion without experiencing significant damage or

collapse. Li and Ellingwood (2007) also examined the seismic fragilities of single-story,

wooden shear wall structures representative of residential construction in the United

States. They compared the nonlinear responses of three wooden shear walls: one solid

wall, one with a door-sized and a window-sized opening, and the final with a garage-

sized opening. The hysteretic behavior of the models incorporated the pinching behavior

observed in experimental tests. Using a suite of ground motions the authors found that

inelastic response of each structure was virtually indistinguishable from the linear

response, even up to drift ratios of 5% (the largest observed value), which was

unexpected because the equal displacement rule typically does not work well for short

period structures like the 0.16 s to 0.32 s structures examined here. They found that the

average probability of exceeding the collapse prevention state corresponding to a 3% drift

ratio was approximately 0.01% for the solid shear wall and nearly three times this value

for the shear walls with openings.

Christovasilis et al. (2009) studied the seismic collapse fragility of woodframe structures,

particularly the effects of construction quality, excitation direction, and wall finishes. The

authors modeled a two-story townhouse and a three-story apartment building and

included nonlinear shear springs with a pinching hysteresis model that captured strength

and stiffness degradation. The models were analyzed using IDA, with collapse defined as

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 15

exceeding a 7% interstory drift ratio. The authors found that using bi-directional ground

motions decreased the median collapse intensity by approximately 20% compared to

analyzing the structure with a ground motion in only one direction. They also observed

that the construction quality significantly affected the collapse fragility and that including

wall finishes in the structural model generally, but not always, decreased the probability

of collapse conditioned on ground motion intensity.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (2010) released a report

evaluating the FEMA P695 (ATC 2009a) methodology for quantifying building

performance factors and assessing the collapse risk of a variety of structural systems,

which is intended for use in determining appropriate design criteria for seismic force-

resisting systems. The original FEMA report considered special and ordinary RC MRFs

and light-framed walls with wood panel sheathing. The NIST report evaluated seven

additional structural systems, including special and ordinary shear walls constructed of

RC or reinforced masonry, special steel MRFs and concentrically braced frames, and

buckling-restrained braced frames. An acceptable level of collapse performance in the

NIST study was based on the adjusted collapse margin ratio (ACMR), which is calculated

by multiplying a spectral shape factor by the ratio of the median collapse intensity (i.e.,

the ground motion intensity at which the probability of collapse is 50%) to the ground

motion intensity at the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) level. An acceptable

level of collapse performance is essentially achieved when the average probability of

collapse given the MCE is less than or equal to 10% for a given performance group (i.e.,

a set of archetype structures with a common structural system and behavior) and less than

or equal to 20% for any individual archetype within the group. The NIST report

concluded that most systems designed according to ASCE 7-05 (ASCE 2005) would have

an acceptable level of collapse performance, although notable exceptions were short-

period RC or reinforced masonry shear walls and short-period steel braced frames. The

NIST report concluded that using period-dependent seismic performance factors may be

necessary.

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 16

Krishnan and Muto (2012) studied the collapse mechanisms of two 18-story steel MRF

structures using 3D models. They subjected the structures to idealized ground motions

represented by a series of identical rectangular acceleration pulses, and they repeated the

analyses using different pulse amplitudes, periods, and number of cycles. The idealized

ground motions were intended to represent near-fault, pulse-like ground motions. They

found that of all the possible collapse mechanisms, only a limited number prevailed and

that these mechanisms were likely to occur in stories where where the strength of the

structural elements is low enough, but the driving mass of the overriding floors is

sufficiently large. The authors also demonstrate that the principle of virtual work can be

used with plastic analysis to predict the characteristic collapse mechanisms.

Wang et al. (2012) demonstrated the viability of hybrid numerical and experimental

simulation by reproducing the shake table results of a full scale, 4-story steel MRF

structure tested to collapse. During the shake table test the first-story columns

experienced large levels of nonlinearity leading to the formation of a first-story collapse

mechanism, so in the hybrid test the first story was physically tested while the rest of the

structure was modeled numerically. The two physical specimen substructures, which

were tested at different locations, consisted of a 1.5-bay by 1.5-story specimen and a 0.5-

bay by 1.5-story specimen. The hybrid simulation was able to capture the first-story

collapse mechanism observed during the shake table test; however, the comparison of

hysteretic behavior at the first story showed significant differences between the shake

table and hybrid tests. The authors attributed the differences to a number of factors

including loading in only one direction for the hybrid test versus tri-directional excitation

in the shake table test, boundary assumptions in the hybrid test, presence of non-

structural components and a concrete slab in the shake table test, and different material

strengths in the shake table and hybrid specimens. Overall, they concluded that the hybrid

test adequately captured the distribution of forces in the frame and produced a similar

response and collapse mechanism to what was observed in the shake table test.

Lignos and Krawinkler (2012a, Chapter 2) modified the IMK deterioration model (Ibarra

et al. 2005) to include the ability to simulate a complete loss of strength and redefined

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 17

some of the models input parameters to make them less sensitive to modeling

uncertainties. They also added the ability to define different backbone curves and

deterioration rates in the positive and negative loading directions in order to simulate the

effect of composite action on the collapse capacity of steel MRFs (Lignos et al. 2011a).

Lignos and Krawinkler (2012b) provide statistical information related to the correlation

of various modeling parameters that may be used to more reliably assess the effect of

modeling uncertainties on the collapse capacity of steel and RC buildings. Lignos and

Krawinkler (2011; 2012a, Chapter 3) calibrated the input parameters of the modified

IMK deterioration model based on experimental tests for steel W-sections and square

tubular columns as well as reinforced concrete beams and developed predictive equations

of the model parameters based on regression of these results. For steel W-sections,

separate equations are developed for beams with and without reduced beam sections

(RBS). Lignos and Krawinkler (2012a, Chapter 7) and Lignos et al. (2011b) also

analytically predicted and reproduced the results of shake table tests of a scaled frame

structure up through collapse, demonstrating that component deterioration significantly

affects the collapse risk of frame structures and that collapse can be predicted fairly well

using relatively simple models. When comparing blind analysis predictions to the

experimental results of a shake table collapse test of a full-scale 4-story steel MRF,

Lignos et al. (2013) found that including both P- effects and the deterioration of steel

components were critical for reliably predicting collapse. The authors also found that

Rayleigh damping yielded better response predictions than stiffness-proportional

damping and that for predicting the sidesway collapse mechanism of the regular plan

building they studied, a 3D model of the structure had no clear advantage over a 2D

model.

A number of recent studies have focused on the assessing the collapse potential of steel

concentrically braced frames (CBFs), including those by Stoakes (2012), Hsiao et al.

(2013), Li and Fahnestock (2013). Building on previous work by Hines et al. (2009),

Stoakes (2012) showed buildings with reserve lateral force-resisting systems (LFRS),

achieved primarily from the flexural strength in the beam-column connections, showed

improved collapse resistance for CBF systems designed in a moderate seismic zone. He

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 18

found that the strength of the LFRS was more significant than the stiffness in improving

the collapse resistance. Hsiao et al. (2013) compared the performance of a 3-story, a 9-

story, and a 20-story CBF building designed for Seattle, WA. They found that at the 2/50

hazard level (i.e., the hazard level with a 2% chance of exceedance in 50 years) including

the effects of the gravity frame had a significant effect on the response of the 3-story

building but not the 9-story or 20-story buildings. In a case study of the 3-story and 20-

story buildings, they found that the median collapse intensity (the ground motion

intensity where half of the ground motions cause collapse) was, on average, 20% higher

when ground motions were scaled to the same Sa(T1) versus scaling based on the record

set intensity, which is the median Sa(T1) of the unscaled records (i.e., when the intensity

was measured using Sa(T1) versus the median Sa(T1) of the record set.) After evaluating

the structures using the FEMA P695 (ATC 2009a) methodology, the authors recommend

that the response modification coefficient (commonly called the R factor) for special

CBFs specified by ASCE 7-10 (ASCE 2010) should be reduced from R = 6 to R = 3 for

low-rise CBF buildings in order for their margin of safety against collapse to be more

consistent with mid-and high-rise CBF buildings. Li and Fahnestock (2013) examined the

collapse resistance at the maximum considered event (MCE) level defined in ASCE 7-10

(ASCE 2010) of low-ductility CBFs, which are representative of CBFs currently

constructed in moderate seismic regions and older CBFs in high seismic regions. They

used SDOF models that included P- effects and reserve capacity to model the resistance

of the structure after the brittle failure of a brace or brace connection. They found that

increasing the reserve capacity was more effective at improving the collapse resistance

than decreasing the R factor and that the ductility of the reserve system is typically more

important than the global drift capacity.

Karamanci (2013) and Lignos and Karamanci (2013) have also performed research

related to collapse risk assessment of CBFs. They found that realistic simulation of the

nonlinear response of a CBF requires that the stiffness-proportional term used in

Rayleigh damping must be computed based on the current stiffness rather than the initial

stiffness because the damping forces produced when using the initial stiffness are not

realistic after flexural buckling and subsequent brace fractures (Karamanci 2013; Chapter

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 19

6). Furthermore, in a case study of a 2-story special CBF they found that using the initial

stiffness was unconservative as the median collapse intensity of this structure was

reduced by over 40% when using the current stiffness. The authors also found that the

RTR variability in the median collapse intensity was approximately 0.6, which is

significantly greater than the typical value of approximately 0.4 for steel MRFs (Ibarra

and Krawinkler 2005; Zareian and Krawinkler 2007b). The authors also found that the

collapse risk, as measured by the mean annual frequency of collapse (c), of special CBFs

is slightly larger than that of code-compliant special steel and RC MRFs obtained in other

studies. They believe this is because damage tends to concentrate in stories where the

steel braces have fractured, making CBFs more susceptible to local story collapse

mechanisms. Finally, Karamanci (2013, Chapter 5) and Lignos and Karamanci (2013)

have developed predictive equations for modeling the cyclic buckling and fracture of

HSS, round HSS and W-shaped steel braces that were calibrated from hundreds of

experimental tests on steel braces.

It should be noted that numerous studies have examined how the spectral shape of ground

motions affects collapse risk assessment. These studies are discussed in Chapter 5.

Various methods exist for evaluating the collapse risk of a structure. Conceptually the

collapse risk could be computed by observing a given structure over a period of

thousands of years and counting the number of times it collapses (assuming it is

immediately repaired or rebuilt each time it is damaged or collapses). This information

could be used to calculate the collapse risk in terms of an average rate or probability of

collapse over a certain period of time. Although conceptually correct, this method is, of

course, impractical. Another straightforward but also impractical method would be to

create an analytical model that perfectly represents the structure, subject it to ground

motions recorded at the site over a period of thousands of years, and count the number of

collapses. Because the oldest recorded strong ground motion accelerogram is from 1933

(Trifunac 2009), this method is also not feasible. It is, however, feasible to use ground

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 20

motions recorded at other sites or simulated ground motions provided they appropriately

represent the types of ground motions expected to occur at the site.

Because the ground motions a structure will experience in its lifetime are unknown, the

collapse risk of a structure can be estimated by evaluating its response to various ground

motions and weighting the responses by how frequently each type of ground motion is

expected to occur at the site. This approach for calculating the collapse risk is described

mathematically by Bazzurro et al. (1998) as

i

where PC is the annual probability of collapse, i is the mean annual rate of events on

fault i greater than a given magnitude (e.g., Mw > 5), and P(C | event)i is the probability

of collapse given an event on fault i. The latter quantity can be estimated as the fraction

of records causing collapse, where the records represent an event on the fault and are

selected or simulated based on the joint probability distribution of magnitude and

distance for the fault.

The former approach is used by Wen (1995) and Jalayer et al. (2004), for example, to

compute the probability of exceeding a given value of inter-story drift ratio (IDR) over a

given time period. The authors of both studies select or simulate records that are

consistent with the magnitudes and distances of the seismic sources surrounding their

sites. This fully probabilistic method can require an extremely large number of ground

motions to capture the range of potential future events, although as noted by Jalayer et al.

(2004) smart sampling techniques (e.g., LHS) can significantly reduce the number of

ground motions required.

measure (IM) such as Sa(T1), which is currently a commonly used IM. The structural

response is evaluated using ground motions with a range of intensity levels. Different sets

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 21

of ground motions can be used at different intensity levels, or the same set of ground

motions can be scaled to different intensity levels. The collapse risk is estimated by

combining the structural response (in this case, the probability of collapse) conditioned

on the intensity of the ground motion with seismic hazard data describing how frequently

each intensity level is exceeded at the site. This approach for calculating the collapse risk

is described mathematically as

c =

0

P(C | im ) d IM (im ) (2.2)

where c is the mean annual frequency of collapse, P(C | im) is the probability that the

structure will collapse when subjected to an earthquake with ground motion intensity

level im, and IM is the mean annual frequency of exceedance of the ground motion

intensity measure im. The advantage of this approach is that |dIM(im)| is readily available

for most sites as IM is the main output of a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA).

assumed that structural collapse depends solely on the intensity level of the ground

motion, as measured by an intensity parameter, and not on other parameters that may

influence the ground intensity measure. This property is called sufficiency and it means

that if, for example, Sa(T1) is used as the IM, the response of the structure or probability

of collapse at a given intensity level is not influenced by the magnitude, distance, or

duration of the event the produced that ground motion. This is advantageous because it

means that ground motions from a variety of events can be used for an intensity level of

interest. The assumption of sufficiency may not be entirely correct as, for example,

Tothong and Cornell (2006) observed a small dependence between the peak displacement

of inelastic SDOFs and earthquake magnitude when records were scaled to the same

value of Sa(T1); however, many other studies have concluded that Sa(T1) is sufficient

with respect to magnitude and distance for predicting maximum IDRs (e.g., Shome et al.

1998; Bradley et al. 2010a). Other studies have shown that Sa(T1) is not sufficient with

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 22

respect to a spectral shape parameter called 1 (e.g., Baker and Cornell 2006a; Haselton et

al. 2011), meaning that the intensity level at which the ground motion causes the structure

to collapse depends on the value of . Baker and Cornell (2005a, Chapter 5) also note that

Sa(T1) is not sufficient with respect to the period of the velocity pulse in near-fault, pulse-

like ground motions. In such cases where the IM is not sufficient with respect to a ground

motion parameter, some modification needs to be made so that the risk assessment results

are valid. Modifications including using a vector IM and careful record selection are

discussed by Baker and Cornell (2005a).

Another issue related to the sufficiency of the IM is whether the same structural response

estimates at a given intensity level are the same when using unscaled/as-recorded ground

motions versus ground motions that are scaled to the intensity level. Luco and Bazzurro

(2007) examined this particular issue with respect to the median drift estimates obtained

for nonlinear SDOF systems and one MDOF system. Their objective was to determine

whether, for a given narrow magnitude and distance (Mw-R) bin and a given level of

Sa(T1), using records scaled to the target level of Sa(T1) produces a bias in the median

drift response compared to using unscaled records with the target magnitude, distance,

and unscaled Sa(T1) values. They sorted records into six Mw-R bins and compared the

results obtained from a given target Mw-R bin to the results obtained using records from a

different Mw-R bin that were scaled to match the Sa(T1) value of the target bin. The

authors found that scaled records could introduce significant bias in the drift response,

which they attributed to differences in the median elastic spectral shape of the different

bins. They noted that the bias could be significantly reduced by selecting records to

match the target spectral shape. They also looked at scaling records within a given bin

and found that, on average, records scaled up to a given intensity level produced larger

responses than records that did not need to be scaled (i.e., that were recorded with the

given intensity level). Baker (2007a) demonstrated that for records scaled to the same

Sa(T1) value, the scale factor did not influence the maximum interstory drift ratio of a

seven-story RC MRF structure (i.e., there was no bias) when the records were selected

1

The spectral shape parameter measures the number of standard deviations between the spectral ordinate

at a given period of a particular ground motion and the geometric mean value predicted by a ground motion

prediction equation. More information about this parameter is provided, e.g., by Baker and Cornell (2006).

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 23

based on spectral shape (either via the parameter or by matching a mean spectral shape).

He found that a bias due to scale factor did exist, however, when records were selected

arbitrarily or from a given Mw-R bin. Bradley et al. (2010a) also observed that no bias to

due scale factor in the maximum interstory drift results of a 10-story RC MRF structure

when using records scaled to a common Sa(T1) value that were selected based on spectral

shape.

When comparing the fully probabilistic method of collapse assessment and the IM-based

approach, Baker and Cornell (2005a, Chapter 1) note:

The concerns with simulated ground motions, the added computational expense

of performing many analyses and the complications involved when the ground

motion hazard and structural response cannot be treated independently mean that

the intensity measure approach still has many advantages as a method for

assessing seismic risk to structures.

For these and other reasons, the scalar IM-based approach is currently widely used to

assess the seismic risk of structures and is at the core of the performance-based

earthquake engineering methodology used by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering

Research Center (Deierlein 2004). The scalar IM-based approach will be used throughout

this work unless noted otherwise.

This section describes different metrics used to quantify collapse risk and discusses the

pros and cons of each.

P(C|IM)

One way to measure the collapse risk of structure is by computing its probability of

collapse conditioned on a specific ground motion intensity (P(C|IM)), such as the

intensity associated with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (the 2/50 hazard).

For example, Haselton and Deierlein (2007) reported the probability of collapse

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 24

conditioned on the intensity associated with 2/50 hazard (P(C|2/50)) as one of the many

metrics they used to describe the collapse risk of RC frame structures. Positive attributes

of this metric include its ability to be computed relatively easily compared to other

metrics discussed later (i.e., it involves computing the probability of collapse at a single,

pre-defined intensity level) and the fact that it combines information about the structure

and the seismic hazard at the site (assuming the ground motion intensity is tied to the

hazard level).

The main disadvantage of this metric is that the collapse risk is only measured at a single

level of ground motion intensity when, due to uncertainties in the structural capacity,

multiple intensity levels contribute to the collapse risk. A collapse fragility curve is a

cumulative distribution function that describes how the probability of collapse increases

with increasing ground motion intensity. Measuring the collapse risk by P(C|IM) is

equivalent to evaluating the collapse risk at only one point on the collapse fragility curve

(only at one level of ground motion intensity), and therefore it does not incorporate

information about changes in the probability of collapse with changes in the ground

motion intensity.

Consider a situation in which two different structures with the same fundamental period

of vibration are located at the same site. Since both structures have the same period and

are located at the same site their seismic hazard curves would be identical even if using a

structure-dependent intensity measure such as Sa(T1). Figure 2.1 shows hypothetical

collapse fragility curves for the two structures, Structure A and Structure B. Even though

the seismic hazard is identical, whether Structure A is safer (i.e., has a lower collapse risk

as measured by the P(C|IM) value) than Structure B depends on the IM level one

considers. For example, Structure A is more likely to collapse (i.e., it has a larger

P(C|IM) value) than Structure B when the IM level is greater than 1, but the opposite is

true for IM levels less than 1. The relative difference in the collapse risk of the two

structures as measured by P(C|IM) also depends on the IM level as, for example, the

structures have comparable collapse risks around an IM level of 1, but at an IM level of

0.5 Structure B is approximately eight times more likely to collapse than Structure A.

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 25

Figure 2.1: Hypothetical collapse fragility curves for two structures located at the same

site.

Consider another situation in which identical structures (i.e., with the same collapse

fragility function) are located at different sites with the same 2/50 hazard. This is

illustrated in Figure 2.2, which shows the hypothetical collapse fragility curve in Figure

2.2(a) and the seismic hazard curves for the two sites, Site A and Site B, in Figure 2.2(b).

The collapse risk as measured by P(C|2/50) will be the same for both cases, but due to

differences in the seismic hazards at the sites (e.g., different slopes in the seismic hazard

curves at the 2/50 level), the collapse risks will be different when a different hazard level

is used. For example, at more frequent hazard levels (i.e., larger values of IM) than the

2/50 level the structure at Site A will have a greater probability of collapse than the

structure at Site B because the ground motion intensity is larger at Site A. The opposite is

true when considering hazard levels less frequent than the 2/50. The degree to which the

relative collapse risks vary with the chosen hazard level depends on differences in the

seismic hazard curves at the two sites. If the shapes of the hazard curves are similar, the

relative collapse risks may be relatively stable; however, if the shapes of the hazard

curves are very different, the relative collapse risks can vary significantly with the chosen

hazard level. This is illustrated in Section 3.5 for six sites located throughout the United

States.

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 26

Figure 2.2: Hypothetical structure located at two different sites: (a) collapse fragility

curve; (b) seismic hazard curves that cross at the 2/50 hazard level.

Given that P(C|IM) yields variable collapse risk results in the special situations

previously discussed, it is clear that this metric is not the most appropriate for comparing

the collapse risk of different structures located at different sites.

On a related note, some design provisions in the United States used to base the design of

a structure on the spectral ordinate associated with a specific hazard level. As discussed

by Luco et al. (2007), this led to a variable collapse risk depending on the location of the

structure. For this reason, more recent design provisions such as ASCE 7-10 (ASCE

2010, Commentary C1) now use a risk-targeted spectral ordinate (rather than a hazard-

targeted spectral ordinate) that is aimed at achieving a more uniform collapse risk among

structures.

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 27

Another collapse risk metric is the median collapse intensity, which is the ground motion

intensity at which the structure has a 50% probability of collapse. As this metric is not

associated with the sites seismic hazard, it is not appropriate for comparing the collapse

risk of structures in different locations (i.e., with different seismic hazards) or for

assessing the relative collapse risk of different structures at a given site whose

fundamental periods of vibration differ significantly. However, it can be used to

approximately compare the collapse risks of different structures located at the same site,

provided the same IM is used (e.g., if spectral acceleration is used it needs to be

evaluated at the same period for both structures so that the IM hazard is the same) and the

dispersion on the median collapse intensity is approximately the same for both structures.

The latter condition is necessary because the dispersion in a structures capacity is related

to the range of intensities that contribute to the collapse risk (e.g., if the dispersion on the

collapse intensity were very small, the collapse risk would be dominated by the median

collapse intensity, but if significant dispersion existed the risk would be distributed

among many intensities).

Figure 2.1 shows how the dispersion affects the collapse fragility curves of two structures

with the same median collapse intensity. Structure B, which has more dispersion than

Structure A, has a larger probability of collapse than Structure A at intensities less than

the median but a smaller probability of collapse than Structure A at intensities greater

than the median. Whether Structure A is safer than Structure B once all intensities are

considered depends on the hazard associated with each intensity, which, loosely

speaking, determines whether the majority of the collapse risk comes from intensities less

than or greater than the median. More information about identifying the contribution of

each intensity to the collapse risk is provided in Section 2.4.4.

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 28

The collapse margin ratio (CMR) is defined as the ratio of the median collapse intensity

to another intensity that is typically associated with a specific hazard level. The 2/50

hazard level or the Maximum Considered Event (MCE), which typically corresponds to

the 2/50 hazard, are commonly used (e.g., ATC 2009a; NIST 2010; Liel et al. 2011).

Note that both FEMA P695 (ATC 2009a) and NIST (2010) use an adjusted CMR, which

multiplies the CMR by a spectral shape factor that depends on the first-mode period of

the structure, a period-based ductility determined via a pushover analysis, and the seismic

design category. The CMR can be viewed as a factor of safety against a structure having

a 50% probability of collapse given the MCE or 2/50 hazard. In a sense the CMR

combines the previous two metrics (except it uses the intensity associated with the MCE

or 2/50 hazard level rather than the probability of collapse at that intensity), and it

addresses some of their shortcomings. However, the CMR also has some of the same

problems as the previous metrics because it only considers two intensities that contribute

to the collapse risk (the intensities associated with the median collapse and the MCE or

2/50 hazard) and only incorporates hazard information from a single point on the seismic

hazard curve (e.g., it ignores the slope of the hazard curve at that point and the seismic

hazard at all other intensities).

It is possible to have structures with the same CMRs but different collapse risks as

measured by c, which considers all intensities that contribute to the collapse risk, even

for special cases in which the structures are located at the same site (Case A) or are

identical (Case B). An example of Case A is illustrated in Figure 2.1, which shows the

collapse fragility curves of two structures with the same median collapse intensity but

different levels of dispersion. It is assumed that the same IM (i.e., hazard curve) is used

for both structures, meaning that the CMRs are equal because the IM hazards are equal.

Different collapse risks as measured by c would arise because of different levels of

dispersion on the median collapse intensity, which relates to how significantly each

intensity contributes to the collapse risk as described in Sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.4. Case B

could arise because of differences in the seismic hazard at intensities other than the MCE

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 29

or 2/50 hazard level as described in Section 2.4.1 and illustrated by Figure 2.2(b), which

shows two seismic hazard curves that cross at the 2/50 level.

The CMR can be a useful metric because, like P(C|IM) when the IM is associated with a

specific hazard level, it provides information about the site and the structure. It is harder

to compute than P(C|IM) because the intensity level associated with the median collapse

is unknown a-priori; however, the CMR generally provides a better estimate of the

relative collapse risk than P(C|IM) because it considers two intensities rather than one.

As previously mentioned, the mean annual frequency of collapse (c) considers all

intensities that contribute to the collapse risk, and it also accounts for differences in the

seismic hazard and the structural capacity and associated uncertainty. For these reasons, it

can be used to directly compare the collapse risk of different structures located at

different sites and is the best metric for evaluating the collapse risk.

effort than the other collapse risk metrics. Unlike the CMR, c requires the full

distribution of the structures collapse capacity as a function of IM (i.e., knowledge of the

full fragility curve) and of the full seismic hazard curve with respect to intensity (not just

values at particular intensities) based on a number of simplifying assumptions. Some

researchers (e.g., Shome and Cornell 1999; Jalayer 2003; Zareian and Krawinkler 2007a;

Bradley and Dhakal 2008) have proposed approximate closed-form solutions for

evaluating c or the mean annual frequency of exceeding a limit state, which has a similar

computational format. The closed-form solutions are based on a lognormal distribution of

the collapse fragility curve and a seismic hazard curve that is linear in log-log domain. As

discussed by Aslani and Miranda (2005b) or more recently by Bradley and Dhakal (2008)

and Vamvatsikos (2012), errors in the closed-form solution of c with respect to the value

2

The material in this section and the following section is based on

Eads, L., Miranda, E., Krawinkler, H., and Lignos, D. G. (2013). "An efficient method for estimating

the collapse risk of structures in seismic regions." Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,

42(1), 25-41.

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 30

computed via numerical integration are mostly due to the representation of the hazard

curve as linear in the log-log domain and to a lesser extent the dispersion on the median

collapse intensity. These studies recommend evaluating c via numerical integration as it

is straightforward, represents a negligible computational effort with respect to evaluating

the structural response at a given intensity level, and is not subject to the errors

introduced by the closed-form expression.

integration and how to conduct a deaggregation of c by intensity to identify each

intensitys contribution to the collapse risk. As previously stated, two pieces of

information are needed to calculate c: the seismic hazard curve, which gives the mean

annual frequency of exceeding different ground motion intensities at the site, and the

structures collapse fragility curve, which describes the structures probability of collapse

conditioned on the intensity of the ground motion. Computation of c is described by

Equation 2.2 and is expanded to demonstrate how to determine each intensitys

contribution to the collapse risk. When multiplying and dividing the right-hand side of

Equation 2.2 by d(im), calculation of c can be rewritten as

d IM (im )

c =

0

P(C | im )

d (im )

d (im ) (2.3)

where dIM(im)/d(im) is the slope of the seismic hazard curve at the site. In general, there

is no closed-form solution to the integral in Equation 2.3, and therefore this integral is

typically solved using numerical integration. This is achieved by computing the product

of the probability of collapse conditioned on IM and the slope of the seismic hazard curve

at discrete IMs, multiplying by the increment in IM (im), and finally adding the results

from all IMs. This process is represented in Equation 2.4 and is illustrated graphically in

Figure 2.3:

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 31

d IM (imi )

c =

i =1

P(C | imi )

d (im )

im (2.4)

(b) numerical derivative of seismic hazard curve; (c) c deaggregation.

contribution of different levels of ground motion intensity to the total collapse risk. This

is analogous to the deaggregation by magnitude, distance, and epsilon () used in PSHA

to determine the seismic sources primarily contributing to the hazard.

probability of collapse at a given ground motion intensity and the slope of the seismic

hazard curve as a function of intensity. As indicated by Equation 2.4, the contribution of

a given (small) range of ground motion intensities to c is obtained by multiplying the

probability of collapse at the intensity corresponding to the midpoint of the intensity

range by the slope of the seismic hazard curve at that intensity and by the width of the

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 32

ground motion intensity range im. As illustrated schematically in Figure 2.3(c), the area

under the deaggregation curve is equal to c. Ground motions intensities with higher

ordinates in the deaggregation curve indicate higher contributions to c.

Figure 2.4 shows that c deaggregation analysis allows the identification of the range of

intensities that primarily contribute to c. For example one may determine the intensities

im1 and im2 that bracket a range of ground motion intensities contributing to, say, 75%

of c.

(a) collapse fragility curve; (b) c deaggregation.

Figure 2.3 also illustrates that ground motion intensities associated with high probabilities

of collapse do not necessarily have large contributions to c because they occur less

frequently than intensities in the lower half of the collapse fragility curve. Therefore, as

will be shown in Sections 3.5 and 3.6, the largest contribution to c typically comes from

ground motion intensities in the lower half of the collapse fragility curve because even

though these intensities have relatively small probabilities of collapse, the slope of the

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 33

seismic hazard curve is typically much larger for these intensities than for those in the

upper half of the collapse fragility curve.

The final collapse risk metric discussed is the probability of collapse over a given time

period. This metric is essentially a different representation of c that is easier to

communicate with project stakeholders. If the occurrence of collapses in time is assumed

to follow a Poisson process (a common assumption in earthquake engineering), the

probability of one collapse over t years can be computed as follows

Because c is a small value for typical buildings, the annual probability of collapse is

approximately equal to c, that is

t

1

Pc (in t years ) 1 1 (2.7)

c

Given that the design life of typical structures is 50 years, many owners and stakeholders

might be interested in their structures probability of collapse over a 50-year period. For a

structure to have less than a 1% probability of collapse in 50 years (the target for

structures designed according to ASCE 7-10 (ASCE 2010), c must be less than or equal

to 2.0x10-4 according to Equation 2.5.

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 34

Generally, estimating the collapse risk of a structure involves trade-offs between

computational effort and accuracy. A number of simplified, approximate methods exist

for assessing the collapse risk of structures that reduce the computational effort involved.

Most of these methods focus on obtaining an estimate of the median collapse intensity,

and many also provide estimates of the dispersion for characterizing the full distribution

of the collapse fragility curve. Some of these approximate methods were mentioned in

Section 2.2, while others are described in this section. It should be noted that the

approximate methods discussed in this chapter are not an exhaustive list. Approximate

methods for assessing the collapse risk of structures can generally be divided into two

categories: those that require the user to perform nonlinear response history analyses

(RHAs) and those that do not. Methods that do not require RHAs are discussed first.

Vamvatsikos and Cornell (2006), FEMA P440A (ATC 2009b), Han et al. (2010), Shafei

et al. (2011), Fajfar and Dolek (2012), and Adam and Jger (2012b), for example, have

all developed methods for estimating the median collapse intensity that are based on a

pushover analysis of the MDOF structure and do not require performing RHAs.

Vamvatsikos and Cornell (2006) developed the static pushover to IDA (SPO2IDA)

software tool which yields estimates of the median collapse intensity as well as the 16th

and 84th percentiles based on results from a static pushover of the structure. The user

inputs the static pushover results as an idealized backbone curve (up to a quadrilinear

curve is permitted), and SPO2IDA returns the collapse intensity predictions, which are

based on regressions of IDA results for SDOF systems with various backbone shapes

using 30 ground motions. Equation 4-4 in FEMA P440A (ATC 2009b) provides an

equation for estimating the median collapse intensity based on a pushover curve of the

structure. The equation includes terms for systems with and without stiffness degradation

and was calibrated based on the IDA results of SDOF systems. Han et al. (2010) provide

empirical equations for the median collapse intensity and the dispersion as a function of

the period, damping, and properties of a first-mode-based SDOF that is constructed via a

modal pushover analysis (Chopra and Goel 2002) of the MDOF structure. The equations

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 35

are based on regression of the IDA results of 4800 SDOF systems and 240 ground

motions.

Shafei et al. (2011) also provide empirical equations for the median collapse intensity that

use properties of an idealized pushover curve of the structure and the type of structure

(MRF or shear wall) as inputs. The pushover curve is based on the lateral load pattern

used by ASCE 7-05 (ASCE 2005). The equations are based on regression of the IDA

results of MDOF models representing generic MRF structures and generic shear wall

structures with a variety of characteristics including height, lateral stiffness, yield base

shear coefficient, cyclic deterioration parameters of individual components, etc. under a

set of 40 ground motions. The equations also permit consideration of how the spectral

shape parameter affects the median collapse intensity. Estimates of dispersion are also

provided based on the structural type.

The final method discussed was proposed by Adam and Jger (2012b), which provides

expressions for 16th, 50th (median), and 84th collapse intensity percentiles of regular,

MRF structures where collapse is dominated by P- effects. The inputs for the

expressions are based on properties of an equivalent bilinear SDOF system derived from

a pushover of the MDOF system and consider different types of hysteretic behavior. The

expressions are based on regression of IDAs on SDOF systems defined by a bilinear

force-displacement backbone that did not consider cyclic deterioration.

Simplified collapse risk assessment methods that require performing RHAs include those

by Han and Chopra (2006), Azarbakht and Dolek (2007; 2010), Eads et al. (2013), and

Baker (2013). These methods, compared to those described above that do not require

RHAs, require more computational effort; however, they are typically more accurate

because they capture the dynamic response of MDOF structures. Han and Chopra (2006)

proposed an approximate method for replicating IDA curves that is based on performing

RHAs on inelastic SDOF systems. Each SDOF system represents a different mode of the

structure, and its properties are determined from a modal pushover analysis of the MDOF

structure. The SDOF responses are combined using modal combination rules to

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 36

approximate the response of the MDOF structure. The authors found that using two or

three modal systems was generally appropriate for approximating the MDOF response.

Azarbakht and Dolek (2007; 2010) developed a method for estimating the 16th, 50th

(median), and 84th fractile IDA curves for first-mode-dominated structures. The method

involves first running IDAs on an SDOF system that represents the MDOF structure. The

results are used to develop a precedence list of ground motions, which is a subset of the

ground motions that best replicate the fractile curves and is determined via optimization

using a genetic algorithm or other approach. Progressive IDAs are then performed on

the MDOF structure in which ground motions are selected according to the precedence

list. After performing IDAs with two ground motions for a desired fractile IDA curve

(e.g., the 50th fractile curve), the median IDA curve for the desired fractile is calculated

and is updated after analyzing each additional ground motion. The analysis stops when

the change in the median IDA curve for the desired fractile is less than some tolerance. In

a case study, the authors found that this method predicted the collapse intensity with a

10% error using only 15 ground motions compared to the intensity calculated from the

original set of 98 ground motions, which represented an 80% reduction in computational

effort.

The methods proposed by Eads et al. (2013) and more recently by Baker (2013) focus on

estimating points on the collapse fragility curve at a limited number of intensity levels

(typically two or three) to achieve a good estimate of c. These intensities are identified

through a c deaggregation using an initial estimate of the collapse fragility curve. RHAs

are then performed on the MDOF structure at the selected intensities. Estimates of

uncertainty related to the number of ground motions used in RHA are also provided for

select case studies. Baker also provides recommendations on how to select the intensity

levels if the objective is to obtain a good estimate of the collapse fragility curve (not c).

The method proposed by Eads et al. is discussed in detail in Section 4.5.

Chapter 2: Assessing Collapse Risk 37

2.6 Summary

This chapter reviewed how analytical research on structural collapse has progressed over

time. It then described two methods for evaluating collapse risk: a fully probabilistic

method and an IM-based method. The IM-based method is currently widely used to due

to the reduced computational effort, among other reasons, and is the method used in this

document. The chapter continued by describing different collapse risk metrics and

comparing the pros and cons of each. It was seen that c (or the related metric of the

probability of collapse over a given time period) is the best metric for describing the

collapse risk because it combines information about the structure and the site and

accounts for differences in the seismic hazard and the collapse fragility at all intensities.

The chapter concluded with an overview of selected simplified methods for assessing the

collapse risk of structures.

Chapter 3

4-Story Steel Frame Structure

3.1 Overview

This chapter provides details about a collapse risk assessment case study of a four-story

steel frame structure located in the Los Angeles, California area whose results are used

extensively throughout this document. Information about the site, seismic hazard, ground

motion selection, structure and modeling, and simulation results are discussed. Much of

the material in this chapter is based on a paper by Eads et al. (2013), although notable

differences include use of: (1) a different hazard curve due to the availability of updated

hazard data since the paper was submitted and the ability to directly generate data for the

site class of interest; and (2) a different collapse fragility curve due to changes in the

definition of damping for the structural analysis model.

The Bulk Mail Center (33.996 N, 118.162 W) located south of downtown Los Angeles

in Bell, California is chosen as the site for this case study because it has been studied

extensively in previous studies. This location represents a typical site in urban California

with high seismicity that is not dominated by unusually strong near-fault effects even

though it is within 20 km of seven faults. Detailed information about the characteristics

of this site is provided by Haselton et al. (2008, Chapters 3 and 4), but some of the more

basic attributes of the site discussed by Haselton et al. are repeated here. Figure 3.1 shows

the faults contributing to the hazard at the site for T = 1 s. The seismic hazard is

controlled by strike-slip and reverse or reverse/oblique faults. The average shear wave

velocity in the upper 30 m of soil at the site is Vs-30 = 285 m/s, which classifies the site as

a NEHRP Site Class D (BSSC 2003).

38

Chapter 3: Collapse Risk Assessment Case Study 39

Figure 3.1: Map of Bulk Mail site (yellow star) and surrounding faults. Faults controlling

the site hazard at T = 1 s are shown in blue (strike-slip) and red (reverse or

reverse/oblique) while other faults contributing to the hazard are shown in white. Thin

yellow lines denote freeways. (from Haselton et al. 2008).

Deaggregations web site by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) (USGS 2012b)

is shown in Figure 3.2. This figure shows the magnitudes (Mw), distances (R), and

epsilons () contributing to the spectral acceleration at T = 1 s (Sa(T = 1 s)) with 2%

probability of exceedance in 50 years. The intensity level with this mean rate of

exceedance is 1.05 g. A period of T = 1 s was used because it is the period closest to the

first-mode period of the case study structure (T1 = 1.33 s) for which deaggregation data is

available. As seen in Figure 3.2 the seismic hazard is dominated by sources close to the

site, and the mean values of (Mw, R, ) are (6.79, 8.9 km, 1.1).

Chapter 3: Collapse Risk Assessment Case Study 40

Figure 3.2: Probabilistic seismic hazard deaggregation for Bulk Mail Site for Sa(T = 1 s)

with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (USGS 2012b).

The seismic hazard curve for Sa(T1) is obtained from the Hazard Curve Application from

the USGS (USGS 2012a) using data from the 2008 National Seismic Hazard Mapping

Project (Petersen et al. 2008). Because seismic hazard data is only available for select

periods, the hazard data from the Hazard Curve Application for Sa(T = 1 s) and Sa(T = 2

s) for Site Class D conditions was interpolated to give the hazard data at Sa(T1 = 1.33 s),

the first-mode period of the case study structure. Because neither the reported hazard

levels nor the reported intensity levels were the same for the 1-s and 2-s data, each data

set was fit with a polynomial curve in log-log space to facilitate interpolation. A 4th-order

polynomial was judged to sufficiently represent the data for this purpose as it captured

the shape of the hazard curve and the discrete data points provided by the Hazard Curve

Application. Points on the 1.33-s hazard curve were found by linear interpolation in log-

log space of the 1-s and 2-s curves at discrete hazard levels. To facilitate collapse risk

assessment calculations, the discrete seismic hazard data points were fit with a

continuous function. The function shows how the (slope of the) seismic hazard curve

Chapter 3: Collapse Risk Assessment Case Study 41

changes between the discrete points and facilitates using small intensity increments when

calculating c via numerical integration. The points on the 1.33-s hazard curve were fit

with a 4th-order polynomial in the log-log domain, which was again judged to sufficiently

represent the data. The resulting seismic hazard curve for Sa(T1) is presented in Figure

3.3, which shows the mean annual frequency () of exceeding a given value of Sa(T1) at

the site. For reference, the intensity corresponding to a 2% probability in 50 years is

Sa(T1) = 0.83 g. The 1-s and 2-s hazard curves used in interpolation are also shown in

Figure 3.3 for reference.

Figure 3.3: Seismic hazard curve for the Bulk Mail Center site.

The objective of ground motion selection is to choose ground motions representative of

the motions expected at the site and that can be used to compute c. The motions selected

should be consistent in terms of expected frequency content, duration, spectral shape, and

other relevant features such as the presence of pulse-like motions if directivity effects are

anticipated. Additional information about record selection is provided by Baker and

Cornell (2006a). A large sample of damaging motions (e.g., those in the lowest 10% of

the collapse fragility curve) is particularly important for Chapter 5, which focuses on

identifying characteristics of damaging ground motions and distinguishing them from

more benign ground motions, and using many records minimizes the likelihood of

Chapter 3: Collapse Risk Assessment Case Study 42

the following ground motion selection criteria were considered.

Ground motions were selected from the PEER Next Generation Attenuation (NGA)

database (Power et al. 2008) based on magnitude, distance, focal mechanism, and site

class. It is important to note that no additional criteria such as were included in order to

facilitate studies of spectral shape and structural response in Chapter 5. The set is

comprised of all NGA records, excluding those from dam abutments, that are within a

specified range of magnitude (Mw between 6.93 and 7.62), Joyner-Boore distance

(between 0 and 27 km), NEHRP site class (C or D), and are from strike-slip, reverse, or

reverse-oblique faults. The ground motion set consists of 137 acceleration records (each

with two horizontal components) from 11 different events. The set includes records with

a variety of characteristics, including pulse-like (records affected by forward directivity)

and non-pulse-like records as seven faults are located within 20 km of the site. Additional

details about the records in this set including NGA identification numbers, station names,

and event data are provided in Appendix A. This ground motion set is herein and

henceforth referred to as MRCD 137 as it was selected based on magnitude (M),

distance (R), NEHRP Site Class (C and D), and 137 records comprise the set. The

distance range used in record selection approximates the sites main hazard contributors

from the deaggregation in Figure 3.2. The site is NEHRP Site Class D, and Site Class C

records are included to expand the ground motion set. The selected fault mechanisms are

consistent with the mechanisms of the faults dominating the hazard at the site (Haselton

et al. 2008). The magnitude range of this set (Mw between 6.93 and 7.62), however, is not

consistent with the magnitudes dominating the site hazard in Figure 3.2. The magnitude

range was adjusted from what was expected at the site in favor of including the numerous

recordings from the Mw = 7.62 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake of 1999, which was

beneficial for the purposes of Chapter 4 and Chapter 5. Implications of the magnitude

range adjustment on the collapse risk estimate are discussed in Chapter 6.

Chapter 3: Collapse Risk Assessment Case Study 43

This section provides details about the structure including structural system, geometry,

and design parameters as well as a description of the analytical model of the structure

used for response history analysis.

The structure used in this case study is a four-story office building whose lateral force-

resisting system consists of steel special moment-resisting frames with reduced beam

sections (RBS). Full documentation of the design is provided by Lignos and Krawinkler

(2012a, Chapter 5), but a summary of the major details is provided here. The structural

system is designed in accordance with the 2003 International Building Code (IBC) (ICC

2003) and the 2005 AISC seismic provisions (AISC 2005b; a). The design spectral

acceleration ordinates SDS and SD1 are 1.0 g and 0.6 g, respectively. A plan view of the

structure is shown in Figure 3.4(a), and an elevation view of the moment-resisting frames

along gridlines 1 and 4, which are the focus of this case study, is shown in Figure 3.4(b).

The design base shear coefficient in the direction parallel to the numbered gridlines

(Figure 3.4a) is V/W = 0.082. The first three modal periods of the building along gridlines

1 and 4 are T1 = 1.33 s, T2 = 0.43 s, and T3 = 0.22 s based on the analytical model

described in the following paragraph.

Chapter 3: Collapse Risk Assessment Case Study 44

(a)

(b)

Figure 3.4: Case-study structure: (a) plan view; (b) elevation view along gridline 4 (from

Lignos and Krawinkler 2012a).

The moment-resisting frame on gridline 4 between gridlines B and D (which is identical

to the moment-resisting frame on gridline 1) (Figure 3.4) is modeled using an in-house

version of the Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees)

(McKenna 1997; 2009). The analysis program uses OpenSees Version 2.1.1 as a base

with add-ons implemented by Lignos including a hysteretic model and stiffness modifiers

for elastic elements, both of which are described later. A concentrated plasticity concept

is used with the frame members modeled as elastic elements with nonlinear rotational

springs at their ends as discussed by Lignos and Krawinkler (2012a) and Lignos et al.

(2011b). Concentrating inelastic behavior at the ends of beam-column elements at a

single point is a simplification of an elements actual behavior, but it is a common

assumption that has been made by many researchers modeling the collapse of structures

Chapter 3: Collapse Risk Assessment Case Study 45

(e.g., Haselton et al. 2008; Zareian and Krawinkler 2009; Lignos and Krawinkler 2012a),

which, if adequately implemented, does not introduce significant errors in the global

dynamic response of the structure (Lignos and Krawinkler 2012a). The nonlinear

rotational springs are zero-length elements (point springs) located where the plastic

hinges are expected to form (i.e., at the center of the RBS locations for the beams and at

the edges of the panel zones for the columns). The model is based on centerline

dimensions, and the frame columns are fixed at the base. In order to reduce the

computational effort when evaluating the response at multiple ground motion intensity

levels when subjected to a large number of ground motions, panel zones were not

explicitly modeled.

The seismically effective weights of the second, third, fourth, and fifth/roof floors are

1070 kips, 1050 kips, 1050 kips, and 1200 kips, respectively (Lignos and Krawinkler

2012a, Table 5.3), for a total weight of 4370 kips. This weight includes the dead load and

a portion of the live load. As there are two identical frames in the direction of interest, the

modeled frame is assigned half of the seismically effective weight (i.e., it carries 2185

kips). The seismic mass is applied at the beam-column joints in each floor and distributed

equally among each joint in the floor. Gravity loads based on the seismic weight are

applied as point loads at the beam-column joints in each floor and are distributed as

follows: the frame columns receive gravity load based on tributary area, and the

remaining gravity load in the floor (i.e., gravity loads carried gravity-only columns) is

lumped on a leaning column. This leaning column simulates P- effects and is connected

to the frame by axially-rigid truss elements. Any lateral resistance provided by the gravity

system is neglected as the leaning column is pinned at the base and between floors.

3.4.4 Damping

Rayleigh damping is used with 2% of critical damping assigned to the first and third

modes. Zareian and Medina (2010) showed that Rayleigh damping can lead to unrealistic

damping forces for concentrated-plasticity systems and can cause significant

underestimation of the collapse intensity. To overcome this problem, they propose

Chapter 3: Collapse Risk Assessment Case Study 46

modifying the damping coefficient and the stiffness matrix of the elastic beam element to

ensure that the total damping work is not affected. The approach to Rayleigh damping

described by Zareian and Medina (2010) is adopted. The nonlinear rotational springs are

made ten times stiffer than the rotational stiffness of the beam element following the

approaches of Medina and Krawinkler (2003, Appendix A) and Ibarra and Krawinkler

(2005, Appendix B), which concentrates the elastic deformation in the elastic beam

element and the inelastic deformations in the nonlinear rotational springs. It should be

noted that stiffness-proportional damping is only assigned to the elastic frame elements,

not the leaning column or to the truss members linking the frame to the leaning column.

The hysteretic behavior of the nonlinear rotational springs is governed by a bilinear

hysteretic response with a modified version of the Ibarra-Medina-Krawinkler

deterioration model (Ibarra et al. 2005; Lignos and Krawinkler 2011; Lignos and

Krawinkler 2012a, Chapter 2). The model utilizes a multi-linear force-displacement

capacity curve and cyclic deterioration parameters that govern stiffness and strength

deterioration as shown in Figure 3.5. The force-displacement capacity curve includes an

elastic region, a post-yield/pre-capping region between yielding and maximum strength

(capping strength), and a post-capping region. The post-capping region can include a

residual strength region where the strength of the element is constant and drops to zero at

a specified ultimate rotational capacity. The residual strength region represents the

behavior of steel components when local buckles stabilize before ductile tearing, and a

residual strength ratio of = 0.4 is recommended based on limited experimental results

(Lignos and Krawinkler 2011). The cyclic deterioration modes include basic strength

deterioration between yield and the maximum strength (the capping strength), post-

capping strength deterioration, unloading stiffness deterioration, and accelerated

reloading stiffness deterioration, although the latter mode does not apply to the bilinear

hysteretic response used in the case study.

Chapter 3: Collapse Risk Assessment Case Study 47

parameters (from Lignos et al. 2011b).

Empirical relationships for defining parameter values of this model were developed by

Lignos and Krawinkler (2011) via multivariate nonlinear regression analyses of

experimental results from over 300 steel specimens. The parameters used for the

nonlinear rotational springs are provided in Table 3.1 and are based on the properties

provided by Lignos and Krawinkler (2012a, Table 6.1). The yield moments are calculated

based on the expected plastic moment, where the expected plastic moment at the RBS

location is used for the beams. Changes in moment capacity due to axial-moment

interaction effects are not considered as the analytical software does not have this

capability. As explained by Lignos and Krawinkler (2011), the parameter defines the

cyclic deterioration modes and is accompanied by an exponent c that controls the rate of

cyclic deterioration and another parameter D that permits different deterioration rates in

the positive and negative loading directions. Both the c and D parameters are defined as

1, the default value, for the case study. The value of the latter parameter implies that the

effect of the slab is neglected, which is the case as no composite action between the beam

and slab is considered (e.g., there is no increase in the flexural stiffness or expected

moment capacity of the beam due to composite action). It has been shown that including

the contribution of the slab may affect the collapse intensity as the increase in beam

bending strength can change the collapse mechanism from a distributed mechanism to

Chapter 3: Collapse Risk Assessment Case Study 48

more local story mechanism (Lignos et al. 2011a; Elkady and Lignos 2013); however,

slab effects are neglected for this case study.

Table 3.1: Modeling parameters for nonlinear rotational springs used in case study*.

Story or Ke (kip- p pc

Element Section My (lb-in)

Floor in/rad) (rad) (rad)

3.5 - 4 Column W24x76 11000 32838 0.025 0.35 1.5

2 - 3.5 Column W24x131 20350 65819 0.025 0.30 1.5

1 Column W24x131 20350 46226 0.025 0.30 1.5

4, 5 (roof) Beam W21x93 10938 12974 0.025 0.19 1.9

2, 3 Beam W27x102 7930 23251 0.020 0.16 1.5

*These parameters are defined in Figure 3.5. All springs use = 0.4; Mc/My = 1.05; and u = 0.4 rad.

The type of modeling used here, specifically the concentrated plasticity concept with

modified Rayleigh damping and use of the modified Ibarra-Medina-Krawinkler hysteretic

model, has been shown to successfully replicate the collapse behavior of both scaled

(Lignos et al. 2011b) and full-scale (Lignos et al. 2013) steel moment frames during

shake table tests.

Only the sidesway mode of collapse is considered; other collapse modes such as vertical

collapse due to loss of axial capacity in a column or in beam-column connections are

neither simulated nor considered. In this study collapse is defined as dynamic instability

where the lateral displacement of the structure increases without bounds. The equation of

motion is solved using Newmarks average acceleration method (Newmark 1959) with a

Krylov-Newton solution algorithm (Scott and Fenves 2010). Numerical convergence

issues are handled via a variable time step function by Lignos that reduces the time step

when convergence issues are detected, and if problems persist the solution algorithm is

changed (using the current tangent instead of the initial tangent, or vice-versa) and/or the

time step is further reduced. As a last resort, ten steps with a time step of 10-4 s are solved

using the Newton-Raphson algorithm (Scott and Fenves 2010) with a fixed number of

iterations (twenty) without checking for convergence. Handling numerical convergence

Chapter 3: Collapse Risk Assessment Case Study 49

issues in this manner permits the simulation of very large inter-story 1 drift ratios (IDRs).

As a practical limit, the analysis is stopped when the IDR in any story exceeds 0.2 rad.

This number is based on engineering judgment as a structure is not expected to reach this

level of IDR without collapsing even if it can be simulated numerically. Examination of

response history results showed that the IDR was typically increasing without bounds

when it reached 0.2 rad. Examination of response history results also revealed that the

collapse intensity is not very sensitive to this maximum IDR limit imposed, provided it is

at least 0.1 rad. An example of the relative insensitivity of the collapse intensity to the

maximum IDR limit is illustrated in Figure 3.6, which shows the first-story (the

controlling story) drift ratio (IDR1) history using a record from the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan

earthquake for different ground motion intensities. For an IDR limit of 0.1 the collapse

intensity is between 0.575 g and 0.588 g while for an IDR limit of 0.2 the collapse

intensity is between 0.588 g and 0.594 g, meaning that the change in collapse intensity is

less than 0.02 g for this ground motion.

Figure 3.6: First-story drift ratio (IDR1) history under a Chi-Chi ground motion for

various ground motion intensities, illustrating how the IDR limit affects the collapse

intensity.

1

As noted by the late Professor Helmut Krawinkler, the term should be intra-story and not inter-story

because the drift is measured between points at the top and bottom of a story, not between stories.

Nevertheless the term inter-story is used here because it is commonly used in the structural engineering

literature.

Chapter 3: Collapse Risk Assessment Case Study 50

This section presents simulation results for the case study including a pushover curve,

results from response history analysis including a collapse fragility curve, calculation of

the mean annual frequency of collapse (c), and a c deaggregation curve.

A pushover of the structure is conducted with lateral loads applied at the floor levels

consistent with the equivalent static lateral load pattern specified by ASCE 7-10 (ASCE

2010, Section 12.8.3). The structure forms a mechanism involving the lower three stories

under this type of loading as illustrated schematically in Figure 3.7(a). The pushover

curve is shown in Figure 3.7(b), which shows the base shear normalized by the weight of

the structure as a function of the roof drift ratio (roof displacement normalized by the

roof height) and as a function of IDR1. The drift ratios of the roof and first story differ

after approximately 0.02 radians because the first story is involved in the mechanism

whereas not all stories along the height of the building are involved in the mechanism

(i.e., the top story is not involved in the mechanism). The kink in the pushover curve at

drift ratios of approximately 0.08 radians for the roof and 0.10 radians for the first story is

due to elements reaching their residual strengths.

(a) (b)

Figure 3.7: Pushover analysis of case study structure: (a) schematic of collapse

mechanism; (b) pushover curve.

The performance of the structure is evaluated for each ground motion using incremental

dynamic analysis (IDA) (Vamvatsikos and Cornell 2002) in which nonlinear response

Chapter 3: Collapse Risk Assessment Case Study 51

history analyses (RHAs) are repeated using increasing levels of ground motion intensity

until dynamic instability is produced. The minimum intensity that results in dynamic

instability is called the collapse intensity. For this case study, the intensity of the ground

motion is measured by the 5%-damped pseudo-spectra acceleration ordinate at the

fundamental period of vibration of the structure, Sa(T1), and for each record the collapse

intensity is found to the nearest 0.01 g. Because only two-dimensional analyses are

performed, the two horizontal components of a ground motion are analyzed separately.

This results in two collapse intensities for each of the 137 ground motion pairs in the set

for a total of 274 collapse intensities. Because having a large sample of ground motions is

a priority for other chapters, each component is considered an independent event and the

collapse fragility of the structure is computed with all of the 274 collapse intensities (i.e.,

a controlling component is not used). IDA curves for each of the 274 records are shown

in Figure 3.8, where each curve denotes the intensity of the ground motion measured as

Sa(T1) as a function of the maximum IDR experienced in any story. The intensity at

which a curve becomes horizontal indicates the collapse intensity as an infinitely small

increase in intensity produces an infinitely large increase in displacement. The thick

black line in Figure 3.8 denotes the median Sa(T1) conditioned on the value of maximum

IDR. The median line confirms that, for this case study, the collapse intensity is generally

not sensitive to the IDR limit imposed provided it is greater than 0.1 rad, as the difference

in the median Sa(T1) between IDRs of 0.1 rad and 0.2 rad is approximately 0.02 g.

Figure 3.8: IDA curves for each of the 274 records used in the case study. The thick black

line denotes the median Sa(T1) conditioned on the value of maximum IDR.

Chapter 3: Collapse Risk Assessment Case Study 52

The collapse fragility curve, which shows how the probability of collapse increases with

ground motion intensity, is shown in Figure 3.9 along with the collapse intensities from

all 274 records. The ordinate associated with the collapse intensity of a given record in

Figure 3.9 represents the fraction of records whose collapse intensities are less than or

equal to that of the given record. The collapse fragility curve is obtained by fitting a

lognormal distribution to the 274 collapse intensities using the method of moments. Note

that although other plotting positions (e.g., Hazen, Weibull, Blom, etc.) and other fitting

methods (e.g., linear regression on the data plotted on lognormal probability paper,

maximum likelihood, etc.) could have been used they lead to practically identical results

for large samples such as the one used here. This results in a lognormal curve defined by

a geometric mean or median value (these two quantities are equal for the lognormal

distribution) of Sa(T1) = 1.03 g and a lognormal standard deviation of ln = 0.39. The

lognormal standard deviation is commonly called the dispersion and denoted as (e.g.,

ATC 2009a). The dispersion of 0.39 is due exclusively to record-to-record variability as

it was computed for a single analytical model of the building (i.e., it does not include

modeling uncertainty).

Figure 3.9: Collapse fragility for the case study including individual collapse intensities

and various probability distributions fit to the data. The lognormal distribution is selected

as the best fit to the data. The lognormal curve is defined by a median collapse intensity

of Sa(T1) = 1.03 g and a lognormal standard deviation of ln = 0.39.

Chapter 3: Collapse Risk Assessment Case Study 53

intensities, and previous studies (e.g., Ibarra and Krawinkler 2005; Bradley and Dhakal

2008; Ghafory-Ashtiany et al. 2011) that conducted goodness-of-fit tests have concluded

that the collapse fragility curve can be assumed to follow a lognormal distribution. For

reference, collapse fragility curves using the Weibull and gamma probability distributions

are also shown in Figure 3.9. These distributions are also fit to the collapse intensities

using the method of maximum likelihood. The Weibull fit fails the Kolmogorov-Smirnov

goodness-of-fit test (Benjamin and Cornell 1970) at the 5% confidence level; however,

both the lognormal and gamma fits pass. The lognormal distribution is visually judged to

be a better fit to the data than the gamma distribution, especially at the intensities

contributing most to the collapse risk, and therefore the former is used in all subsequent

representations of the collapse fragility curve.

The mean annual frequency of collapse c is computed by integrating the product of the

collapse fragility curve and the slope of the seismic hazard curve over all ground motion

intensities as shown in Equation 2.3. This results in c = 3.9x10-4, which has a similar

order of magnitude to values obtained in a study by Haselton and Deierlein (2008) in

which they assessed the seismic performance of modern reinforced concrete moment

frame buildings located at the same site in southern California and found that c values

were on the order of 10-5 to 10-4 for these buildings. The c for the case study building

corresponds to a 1.9% probability of collapse of over 50 years (Pc,50) using Equation 2.5.

It should be noted that this value of Pc,50 is approximately twice the target value for

structures designed according to ASCE 7-10 (ASCE 2010); however, the collapse risk of

the case study structure was computed without directly considering how the spectral

shape of the records used may bias the computed risk with respect to what would be

computed using records whose spectral shapes are consistent with what is expected at the

site based on a PSHA deaggregation. The effects of spectral shape on structural response

estimates are examined in detail in Chapter 5, and the effects of spectral shape on the

computed collapse risk of the case study structure are examined in Section 5.7 and

Section 6.4. Effects of ground motion duration on the structural response estimates are

not considered here, although recent research suggests that duration can influence the

Chapter 3: Collapse Risk Assessment Case Study 54

consideration for sites near zones capable of generating large magnitude events where

long duration motions are expected to occur.

Figure 3.10 shows the components involved in computing c including the collapse

fragility curve (Figure 3.10(a)), the slope of the seismic hazard curve (Figure 3.10(b)).

The product of these two components is shown in Figure 3.10(c), which is called the c

deaggregation curve as it shows each intensitys contribution to c. As shown in Figure

3.10, intensities corresponding to the lower half of the collapse fragility curve dominate

the structures collapse risk. The most significant contribution to c is from Sa(T1) = 0.74

g (Figure 3.10(c)), which corresponds to a 20% probability of collapse (Figure 3.10(a)).

For the case study, 65% of c comes from intensities less than the median collapse

intensity (Sa(T1) = 1.03 g). The dominance of intensities less than the median collapse

intensity is driven by the steep slope of the seismic hazard curve at these intensities,

which outweighs the corresponding small probabilities of collapse. In other words, even

though large levels of intensity (e.g., > 1.5 g) lead to very large probabilities of collapse

(larger than 80% for this structure), these large levels of ground motion intensity are very

rare and have much smaller frequencies of exceedance than those in the lower portion of

the collapse fragility curve, and therefore they do not end up contributing significantly to

c. Meanwhile, ground motion intensities in the lower half of the collapse fragility curve,

even though they have much smaller probabilities of collapse, occur significantly more

frequently (by one or more orders of magnitude) than those associated with large

probabilities of collapse and therefore lead to the largest contributions to c.

consistent with other studies that examined c deaggregations. A summary of these

studies was presented by Eads et al. (2012) and is repeated here. Ibarra and Krawinkler

(2005) examined five single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems designed for the Los

Angeles area with periods ranging from 0.1 s to 2.0 s and found that the maximum

contributions to c came from intensities associated with probabilities of collapse around

20%. Haselton and Deierlein (2008) showed that intensities around 60% of the median

Chapter 3: Collapse Risk Assessment Case Study 55

collapse intensity provided the maximum contributions to c for two 4-story reinforced

concrete frames also designed for the Los Angeles area. Deaggregations of c for

structures located throughout New Zealand presented by Bradley and Dhakal (2008) also

showed that the most significant contributions to c came from intensities smaller than the

median collapse intensity.

Figure 3.10: Case study collapse risk assessment: (a) collapse fragility curve; (b) slope of

the seismic hazard curve; (c) c deaggregation curve.

This section examines the influence of the seismic hazard curve on the collapse risk,

specifically how the shape of the hazard curve affects the shape of the c deaggregation

and the relative value of c. To accomplish this, seismic hazard curves are obtained for

six locations throughout the United States (US). These locations, which are defined in

Table 3.2, comprise three sites in the western US and three sites in the central and eastern

US. The c deaggregations are computed for each location using the response history

Chapter 3: Collapse Risk Assessment Case Study 56

results from the case study in Section 3.5. The material in this section appeared in a paper

by Eads et al. (2012), although notable differences include use of: (1) a different hazard

curve due to the availability of updated hazard data since the paper was submitted; and

(2) a different ground motion set, which produces small changes in the collapse fragility

curve.

Western US Central & Eastern US

Site Zip Code Site Zip Code

Los Angeles, CA 90015 Charleston, SC 29401

San Francisco, CA 94111 Memphis, TN 38103

Seattle, WA 98104 St. Louis, MO 63101

The seismic hazard curves were again obtained from the USGS Hazard Curve

Application (USGS 2012a). Because data was unavailable for NEHRP Site Class D for

the central and eastern locations, the seismic hazard data for the border of NEHRP Site

Classes B and C is used for all locations in the interest of consistency. This is deemed

reasonable as the primary objective here is to examine how differences in the seismic

hazard curves affect the c deaggregation and the relative value of c. The seismic hazard

curves are interpolated to T1 using the method described in Section 3.2. The resulting

seismic hazard curves are shown in Figure 3.11, where the lines marked 10/50 and

2/50 denote the hazards with 10% and 2% probabilities of exceedance in 50 years,

respectively. Events associated with these hazard levels are often referred to as the

Design Basis Event (DBE) and Maximum Considered Event (MCE), respectively.

Chapter 3: Collapse Risk Assessment Case Study 57

Figure 3.11: Seismic hazard curves for Sa(T1) for various locations in the US.

The c values for the various locations are shown in Table 3.3. These values are not the

focus of this section and are tabulated here for illustrative purposes only as the structure

and ground motions used for computing the collapse fragility function are not necessarily

representative of what is expected at each location. The focus, rather, is only on how

differences in the seismic hazard curves affect the relative values of c. As the same

collapse fragility curve is used for each site, differences in c are exclusively due to

differences in the seismic hazard curves. Because the seismic hazard curves of Los

Angeles and St. Louis are very different (Figure 3.11), one would expect c to be very

different for these sites. This is the case as c for Los Angeles is over forty times larger

than c for St. Louis (Table 3.3). Using the same logic, one might also expect c for

Seattle and Memphis to be very different; however, these two locations have nearly

identical values of c (Table 3.3) even though the seismic hazard in Seattle is greater at

both the 10/50 and 2/50 levels (Figure 3.11). Intensities associated with the 2/50 level are

similar for Memphis and Charleston, with the intensity for Memphis being slightly larger

(Figure 3.11). While c is on the same order of magnitude for these sites, c for Memphis

is actually 34% smaller than c for Charleston (Table 3.3). This is due to differences in

the seismic hazards at intensities other than the 2/50 level. The previous results

emphasize the importance of considering all intensities that contribute to the collapse risk

Chapter 3: Collapse Risk Assessment Case Study 58

as opposed to some of the collapse metrics described in Section 2.4 that are based on only

a single level of ground motion intensity. Recognizing that the collapse risk of a structure

designed based on the spectral ordinate at the 2/50 level varies with its location due to

differences in the shapes of seismic hazard curves (Luco et al. 2007), ASCE 7-10 (ASCE

2010, Chapter C11) updated the probabilistic portions of its seismic design maps with

risk-targeted spectral ordinates aimed at having more uniform collapse risks for structures

in different locations.

Western US Central & Eastern US

Site c [10 ]

5 Site c [105]

Los Angeles, CA 5.8 Memphis, TN 2.5

San Francisco, CA 6.0 Charleston, SC 3.8

Seattle, WA 2.4 St. Louis, MO 0.1

The c deaggregations for all sites are presented in Figure 3.12(e,f) along with the

collapse fragility curve (Figure 3.12(a,b)) and the slopes of the seismic hazard curves

(Figure 3.12(c,d)). Plots on the left pertain to the western US sites while plots on the right

pertain to the central and eastern US sites. The deaggregations show that for all sites,

despite significant differences in the seismic hazard curves, the largest collapse risk

contributions (the peak of each deaggregation curve in Figure 3.12(e,f)) occur at

intensities less than the median collapse intensity of Sa(T1) = 1.03 g. In fact, the intensity

with the maximum contribution to c is in the lower third of the collapse fragility curve

for all sites. This is the result of the slopes of the seismic hazard curve being typically

much larger (sometimes by orders of magnitude) for intensities in the lower half of the

collapse fragility curve than for those in the upper half of the collapse fragility curve.

Chapter 3: Collapse Risk Assessment Case Study 59

Figure 3.12: Case study collapse risk assessment for locations throughout the US:

collapse fragility curve in (a) and (b); slopes of the seismic hazard curves in (c) and (d);

c deaggregation curves in (e) and (f). Plots on the left (i.e., (a) (c) and (e)) pertain to the

western US locations while plots on the right (i.e., (b) (d) and (f)) pertain to the central

and eastern US locations. Note the different vertical scales of the c deaggregation curves.

As previously stated the structure and ground motions used for this study are not

necessarily representative of what is expected at each location, and in general it is not

expected that the collapse fragility curve would be the same at all six locations. To test

the sensitivity of previous observations regarding which intensities have the most

Chapter 3: Collapse Risk Assessment Case Study 60

assuming that the collapse risk is the same at all six locations. The collapse risk is

selected to be c = 2.0x10-4, which corresponds to a 1% probability of collapse in 50

years using Equation 2.5. This value is chosen because it is consistent with the target

collapse risk of structures designed according to ASCE 7-10 (ASCE 2010, Chapter 22).

The median collapse intensity that produces a collapse risk of c = 2.0x10-4 for each site

is found through iteration assuming that the dispersion of the collapse fragility curve is

ln = 0.4, which Zareian and Krawinkler (2009) found was a typical value for generic

moment-resisting frames due to record-to-record variability (i.e., not accounting for any

modeling uncertainty). Note that determining the collapse fragility curve in this manner

means that the structure and ground motion set used previously are no longer relevant.

The assumption that the same structure and ground motions are used at all sites is not

required. The collapse fragility curve for each site simply represents a hypothetical

structure and ground motion set that produce the specified collapse fragility curve.

Collapse risk deaggregations are performed for each site, and the results are summarized

in Figure 3.13(a) for the western US sites and Figure 3.13(b) for the central and eastern

US sites. Figure 3.13 shows the cumulative contribution to c as a function of intensity,

where the cumulative contribution to c is the area under the c deaggregation between

zero and the given intensity expressed as a fraction of c (i.e., the area under the c

deaggregation between zero and an infinitely large intensity). Circles in Figure 3.13

indicate the median collapse intensity while stars indicate the intensity with the most

significant contribution to the collapse risk (i.e., the intensity at the peak of the c

deaggregation). The results presented in Figure 3.13 show that the intensity with the

greatest contribution to the collapse risk is less than the median collapse intensity for all

six sites, which is consistent with the previous example. For the western US sites shown

in Figure 3.13(a), the majority of the collapse risk comes from intensities in the lower

half of the collapse fragility curve as intensities less than the median collapse intensity

are responsible for between 58% (in the case of Seattle) and 78% (in the case of San

Francisco) of c. The converse is true for the central and eastern US sites shown in Figure

3.13(b) as intensities less than the median collapse intensity are only responsible for

Chapter 3: Collapse Risk Assessment Case Study 61

between 33% (in the case of Charleston) and 48% (in the case of St. Louis) of c. The

cumulative contribution to c at the intensity associated with the peak of the c

deaggregation was relatively consistent for all sites, however, as the cumulative

contribution at this intensity is approximately 35% for the west coast sites (Figure

3.13(a)) and approximately 30% for the central and east coast sites (Figure 3.13(b)).

sites; (b) central and eastern US sites. All sites have a collapse risk of c = 2.0x10-4 and

dispersion on the collapse fragility curve of ln = 0.4.

Though the collapse fragility curves are not shown, it is worth noting that the intensity

associated with the peak of the c deaggregation is located in the lower third of the

collapse fragility curve (i.e., the probability of collapse at this intensity is less than 33%)

for all western US sites and for St. Louis, which in consistent with the previous example

that used the same collapse fragility curve for all sites. This does not hold for Memphis

and Charleston, however, as the intensity at the peak of the c deaggregation is associated

with collapse probabilities of 36% and 43%, respectively, for these sites.

The previous discussions about the c deaggregation curve, the intensities that contribute

most to c, and the influence of the seismic hazard curve demonstrate that the most

significant contribution to the collapse risk comes from an intensity less than the median

Chapter 3: Collapse Risk Assessment Case Study 62

collapse intensity. The cases examined here suggest that the collapse risk of the western

US sites is dominated by intensities in the lower half of the collapse fragility curve, but

this may not necessarily be true for all sites in the central and eastern US. Note that these

findings are based on case studies where the probability of collapse over a 50-year period

is less than 2%. Structures with very high collapse risks can have significant probabilities

of collapsing at ground motion intensities that occur relatively frequently, meaning that

the intensity with the greatest contribution to the collapse risk could be greater than the

median collapse intensity. Thus regardless of how well a structure is designed, it is

recommended that to obtain a good collapse risk estimate emphasis should be placed on

intensities with significant contributions to the collapse risk rather than the median

collapse intensity as is currently done (e.g., ATC 2009a). This serves as motivation for

the efficient method of estimating the collapse risk that is proposed in Chapter 4.

Chapter 4

Annual Frequency of Collapse due to the Number of Ground

Motions Considered

Eads, L., Miranda, E., Krawinkler, H., and Lignos, D. G. (2013). "An efficient

method for estimating the collapse risk of structures in seismic regions."

Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 42(1), 25-41.

4.1 Overview

Previous studies have focused on uncertainty in collapse risk due to record-to-record

(RTR) variability and modeling uncertainty (e.g., Ibarra and Krawinkler (2005, Chapter

6; 2011); Zareian and Krawinkler (2007b; a); Bradley and Dhakal 2008; Liel et al. 2009).

This chapter deals with uncertainty in the collapse fragility (i.e., the probability of

collapse conditioned on ground motion intensity) and mean annual frequency of collapse

(c) associated with employing a small number of ground motions in response history

analysis (RHA). This type of uncertainty is an epistemic uncertainty because it is

reducible, in this case by using a larger sample of ground motions, and is sometimes

referred to as statistical uncertainty (e.g., Benjamin and Cornell 1970). Only

uncertainty in the collapse risk due to obtaining statistical parameters of the collapse

fragility by using a small number of ground motion records and the effect on c are

discussed here. Theoretical confidence intervals on the collapse fragility are discussed,

and uncertainty in the collapse fragility and c are quantified as a function of the number

of ground motions using the case study results from Chapter 3. Finally, a method for

estimating c based on estimating the collapse fragility curve at only two intensities is

proposed, and this method is demonstrated using the case study.

63

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 64

According to classical statistical theory (see, e.g., Benjamin and Cornell 1970), the

standard error (SE) of a sample mean ( x ) is computed as

X

SE ( x ) = (4.1)

N

where X is the standard deviation of the random variable X of the population from

which the samples are drawn and N is the number of samples. In the context of this

chapter, N is used to denote the number of ground motions used in RHA. In practice

however, X is often unknown and is replaced in Equation 4.1 by the sample standard

deviation s X to give the estimated SE of x . As N gets large, the central limit theorem

says that the distribution of x becomes approximately normal. This facilitates the use of

confidence intervals on x computed using the normal probability distribution. However,

if the parameter being estimated is not x , the SE of the estimated parameter cannot be

computed using Equation 4.1 and in most cases a formula for estimating the SE of a

parameter other than x does not exist (Efron and Tibshirani 1993). Furthermore, the

central limit theorem, which facilitates approximating the estimated parameter as

normally distributed, technically only applies when: (1) N is large; and (2) the estimated

parameter is the sum of independent random variables. Estimates of the mean fall under

the central limit theorem because the sample mean is simply the sum of random variables

divided by a constant (i.e., the number of samples, N).

The bootstrap procedure developed by Efron (1979) provides a way to estimate the SE of

almost any statistic or estimator and can also be used to construct confidence intervals on

the estimated parameter without the limitations of the central limit theorem. A detailed

description of the bootstrap procedure is provided by Efron and Tibshirani (1993), but the

essentials are as follows: given a set of N observations, an arbitrarily large number of

bootstrap samples are generated, where each bootstrap sample contains N observations

randomly sampled, with replacement, from the original observations. The desired

parameter (e.g., x ) is computed for each bootstrap sample, and the bootstrap estimate of

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 65

parameter. The bootstrap replications can also be used to construct confidence intervals

(see Efron and Tibshirani 1993 for details).

A number of previous studies have examined how the number of ground motions used in

RHA affects the uncertainty in structural performance estimates, and many of these

studies employed the bootstrap procedure. These studies have typically focused on

uncertainty in the mean or median value 1. In particular, many studies looked at the

variability in the median capacity (i.e., the horizontal variability of one point on the

collapse fragility) as opposed to the variability of the probability of collapse conditioned

on ground motion intensity, P(C | IM), (i.e., the vertical variability of all points on the

collapse fragility). For example, Jalayer (2003, Chapter 4) estimated the statistical

uncertainty in the median estimate of the peak interstory drift ratio (IDR) conditioned on

ground motion intensity as a function of N. She found that the SE in the median estimate

was approximately equal to the value obtained using Equation 4.1. Vamvatsikos and

Cornell (2006) compared the error in estimating the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles of

incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) curves based on demand and capacity using a set of

10 records versus using a set of 30 records. The ratio of error using 10 records versus 30

records was, on average, 1.7, which is what is expected based on Equation 4.1 (i.e., (30)

/ (10) 1.7); however, when considering a specific type of force-displacement curve

(i.e., bilinear, trilinear, or quadrilinear) this error ratio ranged from 1.4 to 2.5. Aslani and

Miranda (2004) studied the number of ground motions required to capture and median,

logarithmic standard deviation, and mean annual frequency of exceedance of peak IDRs

and peak floor accelerations. They found that the number of ground motions required to

estimate both the median IDR for a given ground motion intensity level and the mean

annual frequency of exceeding a given IDR level within a certain error range (e.g., 10%

error) increased with the intensity level and the IDR level, respectively. They found that

1

The lognormal distribution is commonly used in structural engineering to describe the distribution of

structural responses (e.g., interstory drift ratios, floor accelerations, collapse intensities, etc.). For a

lognormally distributed random variable Y (i.e., the natural logarithm of Y, denoted as ln(Y), is normally

distributed), the median of Y is equal to the geometric mean of Y, which is the exponential of the mean of

ln(Y). Because of this equality, the median of Y is often used to characterize the lognormal distribution or

report results as it has the same units as the response parameter of interest (as opposed to the mean of

ln(Y)).

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 66

the number of ground motions required to estimate the lognormal dispersion of the

median IDR for a given ground motion intensity level within a certain error range was

nearly independent of intensity level, however.

In a study related to the procedure proposed by Eads et al. (2013), which is discussed

later in this chapter, Baker (2013) estimated the collapse fragility curve by estimating

P(C | IM) at three intensity levels. In a case study involving Monte Carlo simulation of

1,000 realizations of the collapse fragility curve, he found that the standard deviation of

the median collapse intensity reduced from 0.078 when using 20 ground motions per

intensity to 0.056 when using 40 ground motions per intensity. This reduction is also

consistent with what is expected based on Equation 4.1 (i.e., 0.078/0.056 (40) / (20)

1.4); however, it is not clear that the assumptions behind Equation 4.1 are satisfied for

this case because the median collapse intensity is estimated by on fitting a lognormal

distribution to the three P(C | IM) data points and taking the median of that distribution as

opposed to computing the median from a set of 20 or 40 collapse intensities.

Furthermore, the standard deviation is computed from 1,000 samples of the median

collapse intensity in both cases. The number of ground motions used is directly involved

in only the estimation of P(C | IM), not the subsequent fitting of the collapse fragility

curve.

Baker (2013) also studied how the number of ground motions affected the estimate of c.

The collapse fragility curves were estimated as previously described and were combined

with a seismic hazard curve to yield 1,000 estimates of c for each case considered. When

using a seismic hazard curve for Los Angeles, Baker found that the coefficient of

variation (COV), which is the standard deviation normalized by the mean, of c reduced

from 0.27 to 0.20 when the number of ground motions used per intensity increased from

30 to 45. When looking at two other seismic hazard curves, he found the COV decreased

from 0.20 to 0.15 in one case and from 0.55 to 0.33 in the other case. Assuming that the

mean values of c for the 30 and 45 ground motion cases are approximately equal for a

given seismic hazard curve, comparing the COVs of c is approximately equivalent to

comparing the standard deviations of c. Equation 4.1 predicts that the ratio of standard

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 67

error would be (45) / (30) 1.2, whereas the COV ratios for each hazard curve case

are approximately 1.4, 1.3, and 1.7. It is not clear that Equation 4.1 applies to this case for

the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph; however, the examples presented here

demonstrate that the uncertainty in collapse risk metrics does not always decrease

proportionally to 1/N.

Shome et al. (1998) state that the number of records required to estimate the median

structural response Y within a factor of X (i.e., within a range of Y(1 X) ) with 95%

confidence can be approximated as

4 ln2 Y

N (4.2)

X2

dispersion and denoted as . As shown by Huang (2008; Appendix C), the former

approximation was derived from the formula for determining the number of records

required to estimate the median of a lognormally distributed random variable Y within a

factor of X with (1-)% confidence

2

1

1 ln Y

2

N = (4.3)

ln ( X + 1)

where -1( ) is the inverse of the standard normal cumulative distribution function and

ln( ) is the natural logarithm.

A similar formula based on the central limit theorem is often used to estimate the number

of Monte Carlo simulations required to compute the probability of failure (pf) for a given

COV of the pf estimator (see, e.g., Rubinstein and Kroese 2008)

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 68

1 p f

N (4.4)

COV 2 p f

intensity-based assessments, Section 5.2.2 of FEMA P-58 (ATC 2012) recommends

using at least 7 pairs of ground motions and notes that 11 pairs can provide a reasonable

estimate when the spectral shape of the motions does not match the target spectrum. The

recommendation of 11 ground motion pairs is derived from Equation 4.3 and is aimed at

predicting the median response within 20% of the true median with 75% confidence

assuming that ln Y = 0.52, which was the largest dispersion on structural responses

obtained in case studies (Huang 2008; Appendix C). When predicting the median

collapse intensity via IDA or estimating the collapse fragility, Section 6.2.3 of FEMA P-

58 recommends using at least 20 ground motion pairs, although Section J.4 notes that

limited studies showed that using 11 ground motion pairs (each rotated 90 degrees to

produce 22 ground motion sets) was sufficient to predict the median collapse intensity.

To accurately predict the dispersion in the median results due to RTR variability, Section

5.2.5 of FEMA P-58 states that at least 30 ground motion pairs are generally needed.

When assessing the error in estimating the dispersion of median IDR conditioned on

ground motion intensity, Aslani and Miranda (2004) found that using 60 records (i.e., 30

ground motion pairs) led to dispersion estimates within 20% of the exact value with

95 confidence for a case study structure. They also observed that the confidence intervals

on the estimate can be non-symmetric, particularly when using a small number of ground

motions. In lieu of conducting many RHAs to estimate this dispersion, Section J.5 of

FEMA P-58 recommends using = 0.45 or using another pre-defined value based on the

structural period and geographic region to estimate the dispersion due to RTR variability.

FEMA P-58 usually recommends using a larger number of ground motions in RHA for

estimating the mean/median structural response compared to other guidelines. For

example, Chapter 16 of ASCE 7-10 (ASCE 2010) requires a minimum of seven ground

motions be used in order to use the average of the peak member forces and story drifts for

design. Using a minimum of three ground motions in RHA is permitted, except that the

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 69

maximum (not the average) of the peak response values must be used for design. It

should be noted, however, that FEMA P-58 is intended for performance assessment and

evaluation of losses, and this implies a performance-based/higher level of design than

many guidelines, which are primarily intended to provide life safety in a design event.

intensity

This section discusses theoretical confidence intervals on the probability of collapse

conditioned on ground motion intensity, P(C | IM), which represents an ordinate on the

collapse fragility curve. This ordinate is often estimated as the fraction of ground motions

that produce collapse in the structure when the ground motions are scaled to a certain

intensity level. Since collapse and non-collapse events are mutually exclusive, for a given

ground motion intensity this is equivalent to the structural response adopting a two-

valued (binary) random variable (e.g., collapse = 1 and no collapse = 0). Therefore,

estimating ordinates of the collapse fragility curve is equivalent to estimating the

proportion of ground motions that produces collapse from the total number of ground

motion in the sample. The latter can be estimated using the binomial probability

distribution which is a discrete probability distribution whose cumulative distribution

function (CDF) is given by

x

P( X x) =

k =0

N!

( N k )!k!

p k (1 p ) N k (4.5)

number of trials (ground motions), and p is the probability of success in a single trial.

The level of uncertainty in estimating the ordinate of the collapse fragility at a given

ground motion intensity level im, P(C | IM=im), is a function of the number of ground

motions used to make the estimation and the observed binomial proportion at intensity

im which corresponds to the fraction of ground motions producing collapse. The latter is

computed as

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 70

n

P (C | IM ) p im = im (4.6)

N

where nim is the number of ground motions producing collapse at ground motion intensity

level im and N is the total number of ground motions used in the estimation. One of the

oldest and most commonly used methods to estimate the confidence intervals of a

binomial proportion are the Wald confidence intervals (see, e.g., Agresti and Coull 1998)

given by

p im (1 p im )

[PC ,LB , PC ,UB ] = p im z / 2 N

(4.7)

where PC,UB and PC,LB are the 100(1-)% upper and lower bound confidence intervals of

the probability of collapse at ground motion intensity level im, and z/2 is the 1-/2

quantile of the standard normal distribution. Examination of Equation 4.7 indicates that

these confidence intervals are symmetrically spaced around pim and that the uncertainty

is reduced as the sample size (the number of ground motion records) is increased. Wald

confidence intervals are based on the asymptotic normality of the sample proportion and

therefore provide a good estimate of the confidence interval for large sample sizes when

the sample proportion is not very close to 0 or 1.

An exact method for obtaining binomial confidence intervals was developed by Clopper

and Pearson (1934); however, Agresti and Coull (1998) showed that even though the

Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals are exact, they tend to be conservative because the

actual coverage probability can be much larger than the nominal confidence level unless

N is quite large. Agresti and Coull judged these intervals to be inappropriate for statistical

practice and recommended using the Wilson score confidence intervals (Wilson 1927),

which are appropriate for all sample sizes and sample proportions and are given by

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 71

z2 pim (1 pim ) z2 / 2

pim + / 2 z2 / 2 +

2N N 4N 2

[PC ,LB , PC ,UB ] = (4.8)

z2 / 2

1+

N

Figure 4.1 shows the 95% Wilson confidence intervals computed using Equation 4.8 for

the probability of collapse as a function of the fraction of ground motions producing

collapse ( pim ) and the number of ground motions N. The confidence intervals are shown

for N = 10, N = 40 (a number commonly used to compute the collapse fragility curve,

e.g., Ibarra and Krawinkler 2005; Zareian and Krawinkler 2009; Lignos and Krawinkler

2012a), and N = 274 (the number of ground motions used in the case study from Chapter

3). It can be seen in Figure 4.1 that when using a small number of ground motions the

uncertainty in the ordinates of the collapse fragility is very high. For example, if one uses

a set of only 10 ground motions and when scaled to a certain ground motion intensity one

computes a probability of collapse of 40% (i.e., pim = 0.40), there is 95% confidence that

the actual probability of collapse at that intensity level (i.e., the value computed with an

infinitely large set of ground motions) could be at low as 17% or as high as 69%. As

shown in Figure 4.1, the uncertainty in the probability of collapse decreases as the

number of ground motions increases, meaning that the uncertainty in the collapse

fragility is reducible and therefore, by definition, is an epistemic uncertainty.

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 72

nim

p im =

N

Figure 4.1: 95% binomial confidence intervals for P(C | IM): Wilson score confidence

intervals as a function of pim for different N.

Figure 4.1 also shows that the confidence intervals are not symmetric. For small values of

pim , which are of particular interest as they typically have larger contribution to c as

significantly greater than the estimated value. This case is of particular engineering

interest as RHAs are often performed at intensities where the probability of collapse is

expected to be small and because intensities with small probabilities of collapse can have

significant contributions to the collapse risk as discussed in Sections 3.5 and 3.6. As an

example, assume that RHA results obtained using a sample of 10 ground motions show a

10% probability of collapse at a given intensity level (i.e., pim = 0.10). The upper bound

of the 95% confidence interval for the true probability of collapse at that intensity is 40%

(30% greater, in absolute terms, than the estimated probability) while the lower bound is

only 2% (8% less, in absolute terms, than the estimated probability). As shown in Figure

4.1, both the width and the asymmetry of the confidence interval at a given value of pim

reduce as the number of ground motions increases.

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 73

This section uses the results from the case study presented in Chapter 3 to illustrate the

statistical uncertainty in the collapse risk. To demonstrate the variability in pim estimates

as a function of the number of ground motions used in the estimation, N ground motions

were randomly selected with replacement from the 274 motions used in the case study

and were used to compute pim as shown in Equation 4.6. This process was repeated 100

times for each N, and the 100 realizations of pim for Sa(T1) = im = 0.74 g are shown in

Figure 4.2. From the case study of Los Angeles discussed in Section 3.5, the intensity of

0.74 g had the maximum contribution to c and yielded P(C | im = 0.74 g) = 20%, which

is denoted by the dashed horizontal line in Figure 4.2. Because this intensity has the

largest contribution to c, a good estimation of c depends significantly upon the quality

of the pim estimate in the neighborhood of this intensity. Figure 4.2(a) shows that

significant variability in pim exists for small N. In sixteen of the 100 realizations for N =

10, the ground motion sample produced pim (a probability of collapse) of at least 40%, or

at least two times greater than the probability of 20% computed with 274 motions. In

other words using a small number of ground motions such as N = 10 could lead to

significant chances of producing large overestimations of the probability of collapse by

more than two times the one you would compute using many ground motions. Similarly,

when using a single set of N = 10 you could be computing a null probability of collapse

(none of the ten records produce collapse) whereas with a large ground motion set one

would compute values close to 20%. The former situation occurred in eight of the 100

trials, indicating there was also a significant probability of largely underestimating the

probability of collapse when N = 10. As N increases the variability of the pim realizations

decreases, which indicates increased confidence in the estimate.

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 74

Figure 4.2: Realizations of pim for im = 0.74 g with different N: (a) N = 10; (b) N = 40;

(c) N = 274.

To quantify the uncertainty in the collapse fragility curve as a function of N,

bootstrapping techniques were used to construct 95% confidence intervals on pim using

the percentile method (Efron and Tibshirani 1993). For a given N and im, 1,000

realizations of pim were obtained using the procedure described in the preceding

paragraph. The number 1,000 was used to obtain relatively smooth and stable confidence

intervals. The confidence intervals for the case studys collapse fragility curve are shown

in Figure 4.3 for different N along with simulation results from the case study (i.e., the

empirical CDF of collapse intensities). It should be noted that pim was estimated at

discrete im levels and that the confidence interval for a given N was constructed by

connecting the appropriate percentile (i.e., 2.5% or 97.5%) estimates of pim with a

straight line. Figure 4.3 shows that significant uncertainty exists in the collapse fragility

when using a small N, which can lead to relatively large errors in estimating the collapse

fragility. For example the 95% confidence interval on the probability of collapse at an

intensity of 1.03 g (the median collapse intensity from the case study) was [0.20, 0.80]

when using N = 10, which gives a ratio of 4.0 between the upper and lower confidence

limits. This ratio decreases to 1.9 for N = 40 and 1.3 for N = 274.

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 75

Figure 4.3: Collapse fragility curve with 95% confidence intervals on P(C | IM) based on

simulations using the case study results shown for different N.

The uncertainty in c due to N was quantified by the same confidence interval techniques

used for the collapse fragility curve (i.e., the bootstrap percentile method). For each

sample, a collapse fragility curve was generated by fitting a lognormal distribution to the

collapse intensities of N randomly selected ground motions, and c was computed with

this collapse fragility curve. To obtain smooth confidence intervals 1,000 sample sets

were used for each N. The 95% confidence intervals for c computed for the case study

are presented in Figure 4.4, which shows that significant uncertainty in c exists when

using a small N. The ratio between the upper and lower confidence intervals for c is 1.3

when N = 274, and it increases to 2.0 when N = 40 and to 4.0 when N = 10. Figure 4.4

also shows that the mean value of c is relatively stable for N > 15 (i.e., the mean of

samples does not vary significantly as a function of N) and that the confidence intervals

are approximately symmetric about the mean value for N > 50.

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 76

collapse

The computational effort in collapse risk assessment is concentrated in performing

nonlinear RHAs to obtain the collapse fragility curve. Obtaining the collapse intensity for

each ground motion is very computationally demanding as it requires conducting RHAs

at increasing levels of intensity until collapse is produced and then conducting additional

RHAs within the last interval of intensities to find the collapse intensity within a certain

tolerance. The computational effort depends, among other things, on: (a) the number of

ground motions used in collapse risk assessment; (b) the duration of each ground motion;

(c) the intensity increment(s) used in the incremental dynamic analyses; and (d) the

tolerance on collapse intensity. However, if one assumes that the collapse fragility is well

represented by a lognormal distribution, which several studies (Ibarra and Krawinkler

2005; Bradley and Dhakal 2008; Ghafory-Ashtiany et al. 2011) conclude is a reasonable

assumption, then it is not necessary to determine the collapse intensity for each ground

motion. One can construct a relatively good estimate of the entire collapse fragility curve

by conducting analyses at only two intensity levels, that is, by obtaining two points on the

collapse fragility curve. This section proposes a method for estimating c which, by using

many ground motions at specific intensities, provides more reliable results and at the

same time reduces the computational effort involved by significantly reducing the

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 77

concentrates on obtaining good estimates of the collapse fragility curve at intensities with

significant contributions to c.

The proposed method was developed based on observations presented in Sections 3.5 and

3.6 regarding deaggregation of collapse risk and those discussed in this chapter regarding

statistical uncertainty when using a small number of ground motions. Given a structure

and a seismic hazard curve, the proposed method to estimate c uses a rough initial

estimate of the collapse fragility curve to identify intensities with significant

contributions to c, updates the fragility curve based on the results of RHAs at the

significant intensities, and updates the estimate of c.

The proposed method to estimate c is summarized as follows:

1. Obtain an initial estimate of the collapse fragility curve assuming a lognormal

probability distribution by estimating the median collapse intensity () and the

dispersion (i.e., the logarithmic standard deviation ) using an approximate

method such as those discussed in Section 2.5 or any other approximate method.

An accurate estimation of the collapse fragility curve is not necessary.

2. Using the estimate of the collapse fragility curve from Step 1 and the seismic

hazard curve at the site, calculate c using Equation 2.4 and obtain the c

deaggregation as presented in Section 2.4.4. Identify the intensity at which the

cumulative contribution to c is approximately 90% (i.e., the intensity at which the

area under the c deaggregation curve between zero and this intensity is 90% of

c). Call this intensity IM1.

3. Conduct RHAs using ground motions scaled to intensity level IM1 and estimate

P(C | IM1) as the fraction of motions causing the structure to collapse. The

motions should be consistent with the magnitude, distance, focal mechanisms, and

site conditions from the PSHA deaggregation at the hazard level associated with

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 78

IM1. One can also take into account . Further information on record selection can

be found in Baker and Cornell (2006a).

4. Using the estimate of P(C | IM1) in Step 3 and the rough estimate of the

dispersion on the collapse fragility curve from Step 1, obtain an estimate of the

collapse fragility curve assuming a lognormal probability distribution. Use this

estimate of the collapse fragility curve and the seismic hazard curve at the site to

calculate c using Equation 2.4 and obtain the c deaggregation as presented in

Section 2.4.4. Identify the intensity at which the cumulative contribution to c is

approximately 20% 2 (i.e., the intensity at which the area under the c

deaggregation curve between zero and this intensity is 20% of c). Call this

intensity IM2.

5. Repeat Step 3 using IM2 to obtain P(C | IM2). Note that the ground motions used

at IM2 are not necessarily the same as those used at IM1.

6. Assuming a lognormal distribution, update the collapse fragility curve estimate by

using the points (IM1, P(C | IM1)) and (IM2, P(C | IM2)). Note that here the

estimate of the dispersion that was used in Steps 1 and 4 is no longer used.

7. Using the collapse fragility curve from Step 6 and the seismic hazard curve,

calculate c using Equation 2.4.

If the points in Step 6 are close together on the collapse fragility curve or the IM levels do

not have significant contributions to c, conducting RHAs at a third intensity and

updating the collapse fragility and c estimates based on the results is suggested. A third

point on the collapse fragility curve is also useful for determining how well the fitted

fragility curve captures the data and deciding whether to run more RHAs to improve the

estimate. The third intensity, IM3, should be selected so that it (a) is not near regions of

the collapse fragility curve and the c deaggregation estimated by the first two IM levels;

and (b) has significant contribution to c based on the c deaggregation.

2

Note that the recommendation of a 20% cumulative contribution differs from the 35% cumulative

contribution recommended in the paper by Eads et al. (2013). The reason for this difference is discussed in

Section 4.5.4.

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 79

As currently written, the proposed method cannot handle a null probability at IM1

because Step 4 involves updating the collapse fragility curve based on the dispersion.

This situation is, however, very unlikely given that IM1 is aimed at an intensity level

corresponding to 90% of c. Nevertheless, if one were to run into this situation, one could

get around this by running additional analyses to try and compute a non-null probability

or by selecting a higher value of IM1. In the latter case, the null probability can act as a

third point on the collapse fragility curve and can be included in the fitting used in Step 6.

As discussed by Baker (2013), the proper method for fitting points in a collapse fragility

curve is the method of maximum likelihood.

Several aspects of the proposed method (e.g., the number of intensities, the level of these

intensities, etc.) were obtained through parametric studies, and the steps were refined

through sensitivity studies on the accuracy of the initial estimate. These studies are

discussed in Section 4.5.4. The IM1 and IM2 values are aimed at capturing intensity

intervals that are significant contributors to c and are good intensities for estimating the

collapse fragility curve. The c deaggregation curve is bell shaped with a long tail to the

right, which means that even if initial estimates of the collapse fragility curve are very

rough, there is still a good chance that the IM1 value will have significant contribution to

c. Because of the short tail to the left of the deaggregations peak, IM2 is generally near

the peak of the deaggregation curve. These intensities are also in regions where the

lognormal curve is a good fit to the observed data (i.e., they are typically not at the

extremes of the collapse fragility curve where increased dispersion between observed

data and the fitted fragility curve is common, and therefore running into cases where

none or all of the ground motions cause collapse is very unlikely).

Performing RHAs at only two ground motion intensity levels greatly reduces the

computational effort of the proposed method compared to performing an IDA.

Furthermore, since RHAs are performed at only two intensity levels, a larger number of

ground motions than currently being used can be considered, which leads to a significant

reduction in the statistical (epistemic) uncertainty in the collapse fragility curve and in c.

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 80

It should be noted that the proposed method is very general in nature and can be used

with an IM such as Sa(T1), a vector IM such as Sa(T1) and , or any other ground motion

IM. For more about the advantages and use of a vector IM, the reader is referred to Baker

and Cornell (2005b). As will be demonstrated later, the method is not very sensitive to

the initial estimate of the collapse fragility curve used in Step 1, meaning even if one

estimates the median collapse intensity based on a static pushover method in which the

structure forms a different collapse mechanism than it typically forms during RHAs, the

error and uncertainty in the final c estimate are not expected to be significantly affected.

set of IDAs to collapse, is that more attention can be paid to selection and scaling of the

ground motions to the hazard levels associated with the two values of the IM. Ideally, one

should select different ground motions for each of these two intensity levels consistent

with PSHA deaggregation results to identify the magnitude (and therefore also duration),

distance, focal mechanism, and distributions at these intensity levels. This approach

avoids the shortcoming in IDA of using identical ground motions at very different hazard

levels, which disregards differences in spectral shape, duration and other ground motion

characteristics with changes in intensity levels that, as demonstrated by Chandramohan et

al. (2013), can impact the probability of collapse estimate.

This section describes how certain aspects of the proposed method outlined in Section

4.5.2 were determined, including the number and level of intensities. Two intensities

were used as a base case, and the intensity levels 3 were varied. For each potential set of

intensity levels, the proposed method was executed with a bootstrap sample of N ground

motions to produce an estimate of c. To facilitate comparisons with the case study, the

ground motion sample used to estimate the probability of collapse at IM1 is also used at

IM2. This process was repeated with 1,000 bootstrap samples for a given value of N and

set of intensity levels. Note that only two intensities were used to construct the collapse

3

In the context of the proposed method for estimating c, the term intensity level refers to the percentage

or fraction of cumulative contribution to c that is used to determine the IM value. This meaning of

intensity level is used throughout this discussion.

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 81

fragility curve (i.e., a third intensity was not included to improve the c estimate if the

two intensities were close together). Confidence intervals on c were constructed using

the percentile method (Efron and Tibshirani 1993). Each set of candidate intensity levels

was evaluated on three factors: (1) the mean of samples converging to the true c (the c

computed from the IDA results with all 274 ground motions from the case study) as N

increases; (2) the level of uncertainty in the c estimate, which was judged by the width of

the confidence intervals; and (3) the robustness of the method as measured by its ability

to capture (1) and (2) when the initial guess of the collapse fragility curve was bad (the

definition of bad is discussed later).

Figure 4.5 is presented to better understand the relationship between where a given

intensity is located on the collapse fragility (Figure 4.5(a)), c deaggregation (Figure

4.5(b)), and cumulative contribution to c curves (Figure 4.5(c)). Figure 4.5 shows three

collapse fragility curves that have strikingly different median collapse intensities () of

0.5 g, 1.0 g, and 1.5 g as measured by IM = Sa(T1) and dispersions of = 0.4. The

seismic hazard curve described in Section 3.2 and used in the case study of Section 4.4

was used to compute c for all of the fragility curves. To facilitate comparing the shapes

of the c deaggregations, the c deaggregations presented in Figure 4.5(b) are normalized

by the associated value of c so that the area under each deaggregation curve is unity.

Markers indicate the intensities with 90% and 20% cumulative contributions to c, which

are useful reference points discussed later. It should be noted, however, that these are not

the exact points that one estimates in the proposed method because (a) it is very unlikely

that the random sample of ground motions has exactly the specified distribution and (b)

the collapse fragility curve is updated each time RHAs are performed, both of which

affect the c deaggregation and change the relative location of the reference points.

Though not shown here, the relative positions of intensities corresponding to the 90% and

20% cumulative contributions to c on the collapse fragility curves and normalized

deaggregation curves do not change significantly when the dispersion changes to e.g., =

0.3 or = 0.5.

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 82

Figure 4.5: Relationship between where a given intensity is located on (a) the collapse

fragility curve; (b) the c deaggregation curve; (c) the cumulative contribution to c curve.

which shows the error in the mean c of the bootstrap samples as a function of the

intensity levels (i.e., the cumulative contribution to c) used to select IM1 and IM2 for N =

40. The error is computed as the difference between the true c and the mean c of the

bootstrap samples as is expressed as a percentage of the true c. Figure 4.6(b) shows the

results when the initial guess of the collapse fragility curve is = 1 g (measured by IM =

Sa(T1)) and = 0.4. Note that these values are very close to the parameters of the true

fragility curve, = 1.03 g and = 0.39. Figure 4.6(b) shows that for the conditions

previously described the best performance generally results from using (a) a cumulative

contribution of at least 60% for IM1 and a cumulative contribution of approximately 20%

for IM2 or (b) a cumulative contribution between approximately 10% and 20% for IM1

and a cumulative contribution of at least 40% for IM2.

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 83

Figure 4.6: Percent error in the mean c of the bootstrap samples with respect to the

true c as a function of the cumulative contribution to c used to select the intensity

levels IM1 and IM2, shown for N = 40 and an initial guess of the collapse fragility curve

of = 0.4 and: (a) = 0.5 g; (b) = 1 g; (c) = 1.5 g. Note: an x indicates that the error

exceeds 50%.

Figure 4.6(a) and Figure 4.6(c) show the error in the mean c of the bootstrap samples for

N = 40 when the initial estimates of median collapse intensity are = 0.5 g and 1.5 g,

respectively, which represent errors of approximately 50% with respect to the true .

The initial estimate of the dispersion is = 0.4 for both cases. The intensity levels with

the lowest errors vary between the cases: the lowest errors for an underestimate of

(Figure 4.6(a)) generally result when using a cumulative contribution between

approximately 50% - 60% for IM1 and at least 30% for IM2, whereas for an overestimate

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 84

of (Figure 4.6(c)) the lowest errors generally resulted from using a cumulative

contribution of at least 40% for IM1 and between 20% and 30% for IM2.

It should be noted that for an initial guess of = 0.5 g (Figure 4.6(a)) using an intensity

level with less than 60% cumulative contribution to c to select IM1 generally resulted in a

null (zero) probability of collapse at IM1 for at least 20% of the samples and for nearly all

of the samples when the cumulative contribution was less than 50%. This is not

surprising given that the initial estimate of the median intensity was very low compared

to the true value. Samples with a null probability of collapse at IM1 were not included in

the statistics. Except for the conditions previously described, samples with a null

probability of collapse at IM1 were rare.

Comparing the errors of the plots in Figure 4.6 leads to some general observations about

the best intensity levels to use given that the collapse fragility curve is unknown:

Using a cumulative contribution to c of at least 60% for IM1 is recommended

because the proposed method can give large errors and a non-trivial chance of

obtaining a null probability at IM1 if the median collapse intensity is

underestimated (Figure 4.6(a)).

Cumulative contributions to c of at least 60% for IM1 and between 20% and 25%

for IM2 produce low errors for both a good initial estimate of (Figure 4.6(b)) and

an overestimate of (Figure 4.6(c)).

For the range of intensity levels listed above (i.e., the cumulative contribution to

c is at least 60% for IM1 and between 20% and 25% for IM2), the error in the

mean estimate of c can be very sensitive to the intensity levels chosen when is

underestimated (Figure 4.6(c)), compared to a good initial estimate of (Figure

4.6(b)) and an overestimate of (Figure 4.6(c)). This suggests that inflating ones

best guess of (e.g., by 20%) used in Step 1 of the proposed method may help

minimize the effect of this sensitivity in the case that is underestimated. In the

case that is a good estimate or overestimated, inflating ones guess of is not

expected to significantly affect the error based on Figure 4.6(b) and Figure 4.6(c).

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 85

The best set of intensity levels based on Figure 4.6 is a 90% cumulative

contribution to c for IM1 and 20% for IM2. It should be noted that Figure 4.6 only

considers N = 40 and the error in the mean estimate of c. Errors for other ground

motion sample sizes and the level of uncertainty as a function of the intensity

levels are examined next.

Promising sets of intensity levels were investigated in further detail by examining the

convergence in the mean estimate of c and the level of uncertainty in the c estimates as

a function of N. Figure 4.7 shows the error in the mean c of the bootstrap samples as a

function of N for three sets of intensity levels and three initial estimates of . For a good

estimate of (Figure 4.7(b)) and an overestimate of (Figure 4.7(c)), all sets of intensity

levels produce an error in the mean c that is typically less than 5% for N 50. For a large

underestimate of (Figure 4.7(a) where the estimated median collapse capacity is half of

the correct value), the mean c is best estimated using a 90% cumulative contribution to

c for IM1 and a 20% cumulative contribution for IM2 (the line labeled 0.9, 0.2).

Figure 4.7: Error in the mean c of the bootstrap samples with respect to the true c as a

function of N for different intensity levels. The initial guesses of the collapse fragility

curve are = 0.4 and: (a) = 0.5 g; (b) = 1 g; (c) = 1.5 g. Note: legend entries denote

the fraction of cumulative contribution to c that were used to select IM1 and IM2,

respectively. For example, 0.8, 0.2 means that the intensity with an 80% cumulative

contribution to c was selected for IM1 and the intensity with a 20% cumulative

contribution to c was selected for IM2.

Figure 4.8 shows the uncertainty as a function of N for three sets of intensity levels and

three initial guesses of . The level of uncertainty is measured by the width of the 95%

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 86

indicate that he confidence interval widths (Figure 4.8) are much less sensitive to the

intensity levels than the error in the mean c (Figure 4.7), especially when the median

collapse intensity is underestimated (Figure 4.8(a) versus Figure 4.7(a)). Furthermore, the

confidence interval widths are not significantly affected by the initial estimate of the

median collapse intensity (Figure 4.7(a), Figure 4.7(b), and Figure 4.7(c)).

Figure 4.8: Width of the 95% confidence intervals on c, expressed as a percentage of the

true c, as a function of N for different intensity levels. The initial guesses of the

collapse fragility curve are = 0.4 and: (a) = 0.5 g; (b) = 1 g; (c) = 1.5 g. Note: for

description of legend, see caption for Figure 4.7.

To test whether the bootstrap results were influenced by areas of the collapse fragility

curve where the collapse intensities were not a perfect fit to the lognormal distribution

(i.e., if a bias existed in the error or uncertainty associated with a set of intensity levels

due to how well the case study data fit the lognormal curve at the associated intensities),

the simulations were redone using a set of 274 collapse intensities that were exactly

lognormally distributed. This was achieved by taking the inverse of a lognormal CDF

with the true values of and at 274 probabilities that were evenly spaced between 0

and 1. Figure 4.7 was reproduced as Figure 4.9, and the results obtained using the

exactly lognormal collapse intensities were superimposed as dashed lines. Although the

intensity levels shown in Figure 4.9 generally have relatively small errors, use of

exactly lognormal collapse intensities slightly reduces the error in the mean c estimate

for initial guesses of = 1 g (Figure 4.9(b)) and = 1.5 g (Figure 4.9(c)). Though not

shown, a comparison of the width of the confidence intervals revealed that there were no

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 87

significant differences whether the case study or exactly lognormal collapse intensities

were used. Because use of exactly lognormal collapse intensities does not significantly

affect the error in the mean c estimate, the level of uncertainty, or the relative

performance of different sets of intensity levels, it was decided that evaluating the

proposed method based on results derived from the case study collapse intensities is

acceptable.

Figure 4.9: Comparison of error in the mean c of the bootstrap samples with respect to

the true c as a function of N for different intensity levels for the case study collapse

intensities (solid lines) and exactly lognormal collapse intensities (dashed lines). The

initial guesses of the collapse fragility curve are = 0.4 and: (a) = 0.5 g; (b) = 1 g; (c)

= 1.5 g. Note: for description of legend, see caption for Figure 4.7.

Considering all the case study results previously discussed (i.e., convergence in the mean

estimate of c, the level of uncertainty, and the performance when the initial guess of the

collapse fragility is bad), it is recommended that IM1 be selected as the intensity with a

90% cumulative contribution to c and IM2 be selected as the intensity with a 20%

cumulative contribution to c.

The proposed method for estimating c is compared to the IDA method, which finds the

collapse intensity of each record via IDA and constructs the collapse fragility curve by

fitting a lognormal distribution to the collapse intensities. The performance of these

methods is evaluated on the required computational effort and the level of uncertainty in

the estimate. Computational effort is quantified by the number of RHAs required to

estimate c. The IDA method used here for finding collapse intensities involves

performing IDAs in 0.1 g increments of Sa(T1) until collapse occurs and then finding the

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 88

collapse intensity within a tolerance of 0.01 g using the bisection method. Using this

approach for the case study, an average of 16 RHAs was required to find the collapse

intensity for each ground motion. It is recognized that this approach may not be the most

computationally efficient approach as, for example, the hunt & fill algorithm

(Vamvatsikos and Cornell 2004) can generate an IDA curve with a maximum of 12

RHAs per record; however, as illustrated below the proposed method is significantly

more efficient than either of these two approaches.

Figure 4.10 compares the 95% confidence intervals and sample means of c as a function

of the number of RHAs for the IDA and proposed methods. The results of the proposed

method are shown when the initial guess of the collapse fragility curve is a median

collapse intensity of = 1 g (measured by Sa(T1)) and dispersion of = 0.4. This

represents a very good initial guess compared to the true values of = 1.03 g and =

0.39; however, Figure 4.7 and Figure 4.8 show that these results are comparable to the

results obtained when there is a 50% error in estimating . Figure 4.10 shows that for

the same amount of computational effort (measured by the number of RHAs used to

construct the collapse fragility curve), the proposed method can provide a good estimate

of c with significantly less uncertainty due to ground motion sample size than the IDA

method.

Figure 4.10: 95% confidence intervals on c as a function of the number of RHAs for the

IDA and proposed methods.

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 89

Table 4.1 summarizes the computational effort and margins of error in estimating c for

the case study using the proposed and IDA methods. The margin of error is computed as

half the width of the 95% confidence interval normalized by the value of c computed in

the case study of Section 3.5. Also shown in Table 4.1 is the number of ground motions

employed by each of the methods. For the proposed method, the number of RHAs is

twice the N because the collapse fragility curve is estimated at two points. For the IDA

method, the number of RHAs is 16 times N because an average of 16 RHAs were

required to find the collapse intensity. (Note that in Table 4.1 for a given number of

RHAs, the number of ground motions for the IDA method is rounded to the nearest

integer, so the number of RHAs is not always exactly 16 times N.) Table 4.1 shows that

for that same margin of error, the proposed method requires significantly less

computational effort than the IDA method (e.g., for a margin of approximately 50%, the

IDA method requires over three times the number of RHAs as the proposed method).

Table 4.1 also demonstrates that the proposed method can be both less computationally

demanding and more accurate than the IDA method. For example, estimating c using the

IDA method with 25 ground motions requires 400 RHAs and gives a margin of error of

47%, whereas using the proposed method with 100 ground motions requires only 200

RHAs (half the computational effort) for a margin of error of 33% (30% less

uncertainty).

Table 4.1: Computational effort and level of accuracy when estimating c using the

proposed and IDA methods.

Number of

Response History Margin of Error in c Number of Ground Motions (N)

Analyses (RHAs)

Proposed IDA Proposed IDA

60 77% N/A 30 N/A

80 70% 99% 40 5

120 48% 83% 60 8

200 33% 64% 100 13

400 22% 47% 200 25

640 N/A 36% N/A 40

1200 N/A 26% N/A 75

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 90

Table 4.1 also includes entries where the margin of error is only reported for one method

due to the sample size being too small (performing an IDAs with N < 5 would lead to

unreasonable errors) or too big (the ground motion set is limited to 274 ground motions).

These entries were provided out of interest (e.g., one might be interested in the margin of

error when using 40 ground motions with the IDA method) and to facilitate comparisons

between the proposed and IDA methods if one wants to assume that the average number

of RHAs to find the collapse intensity of each ground motion by IDA is a number other

than 16 (e.g., if one wants to compare the methods assuming that an average of 10 RHAs

is sufficient to find the collapse intensity).

The performance of the proposed method was also investigated when using three

intensity levels to estimate the collapse fragility curve. For this investigation the third

intensity level was taken as the mean value of the intensities associated with IM1 and IM2.

When implementing the proposed method in practice, the third intensity level should be

chosen as discussed in Section 4.5.2 (i.e., so that it is not near regions of the collapse

fragility curve estimated by IM1 and IM2 and that it has a significant contribution to c

based on the deaggregation). While it is possible to implement these selection constraints

in a computer code (e.g., by defining a number of conditions and setting tolerances on the

minimum difference between the intensity values), this was not done. It is recognized that

taking the third intensity as the mean of the other two is not an intelligent choice in some

situations (e.g., if the first two intensities are very close to each other) so the results

should be interpreted with this in mind. The best-performing set of intensity levels were

again 90% and 20% cumulative contributions to c for IM1 and IM2, respectively, so

comparisons are shown for only this set of intensity levels. Figure 4.11 compares the

error in the mean c estimate when using two or three intensity levels to estimate the

collapse fragility curve as a function of the computational effort, which is measured by

the number of RHAs. Figure 4.11 shows that for the same computational effort,

estimating the collapse fragility at three intensities as opposed to two can reduce the error

in the mean c estimate but only for certain conditions related to the initial guess of the

collapse fragility curve and number of RHAs. For example, when the initial guess of the

collapse fragility curve is = 1.5 g and = 0.4 (Figure 4.11(c)), estimating the collapse

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 91

fragility curve at three intensities as opposed to two produces less error in the mean c

estimate when at least 100 RHAs are used (i.e., at least 50 ground motions used to

estimate P(C|IM) when using two intensity levels and at least 33 ground motions used to

estimate P(C|IM) when using three intensity levels). Cases in which estimating the

collapse fragility curve at three intensities produces more error in the mean c estimate

than estimating at only two intensities for the same computational effort typically occur

when the initial estimate of the collapse fragility curve is very rough and less than 33

ground motions are used to estimate P(C|IM) (Figure 4.11(a) and Figure 4.11(c)).

Figure 4.11: Comparison of error in the mean c of the bootstrap samples with respect to

the true c as a function of the total number of response history analyses used to

estimate the collapse fragility curve. Results are shown when using two or three intensity

levels to estimate the collapse fragility. Intensities with 90% and 20% cumulative

contributions to c are used for IM1 and IM2, respectively. When a third intensity is used,

it is selected as the mean of IM1 and IM2. The initial guesses of the collapse fragility

curve are = 0.4 and: (a) = 0.5 g; (b) = 1 g; (c) = 1.5 g.

Figure 4.12 compares the width of the 95% confidence intervals on c, expressed as a

percentage of the true c, as a function of the total number of RHAs used to estimate

the collapse fragility curve. Figure 4.12 shows that, for the same number of RHAs, using

two intensity levels instead of three generally reduces the uncertainty in the c estimate,

although the reduction can be small, for underestimates (Figure 4.12(a)), good estimates

(Figure 4.12(b)), and overestimates (Figure 4.12(c)) of the initial guess of the collapse

fragility curve. The previous results demonstrate that for the same amount of

computational effort, using two or three intensities to estimate the collapse fragility curve

can give good results in terms of the error in the mean c estimate and level of uncertainty

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 92

when IM1 and IM2 are selected as the intensities with a 90% and 20%, respectively,

cumulative contribution to c. When using less than 120 total RHAs, case study results

suggest it is better to use two intensity levels opposed to three. Case study results also

show a trade off when using more than 120 RHAs as using two intensities will generally

result in slightly less uncertainty but slightly more error in the mean c estimate. Another

factor to consider when using a third intensity is the potential effort involved in selecting

appropriate ground motions for a third intensity level.

the true c, as a function of the total number of response history analyses used to

estimate the collapse fragility curve. Results are shown when using two or three intensity

levels to estimate the collapse fragility. Intensities with 90% and 20% cumulative

contributions to c are used for IM1 and IM2, respectively. When a third intensity is used,

it is selected as the mean of IM1 and IM2. The initial guesses of the collapse fragility

curve are = 0.4 and: (a) = 0.5 g; (b) = 1 g; (c) = 1.5 g.

An interesting issue is how the proposed method performs for a different seismic hazard

curve and/or collapse fragility curve, especially with respect to the recommended

intensity levels. As mentioned earlier, the paper by Eads et al. (2013) recommends using

the intensity associated with a 35% cumulative contribution to c for IM2 while the

proposed method in Section 4.5.2 recommends using 20% instead of 35%. These

recommendations were both calibrated via the same case study (i.e., the same structure

and the same site); however, the seismic hazard curves and the damping used in the

structural model were defined differently, which led to differences in the collapse risk

(and associated c deaggregations and cumulative contributions). A comparison of the

collapse risk results for the case study used by Eads et al. (2013) and the case study

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 93

presented in Section 3.5 is shown in Figure 4.13. The c deaggregation in Figure 4.13(c)

also includes markers at the intensity with a 35% cumulative contribution to c for the

Eads et al. (2013) case study and at the intensity with a 20% cumulative contribution to c

for the case study presented in Section 3.5. For both case studies these intensities are at or

very near the peak of the associated c deaggregations. This suggests that choosing the

intensity at the peak of the c deaggregation may be a good choice for IM2. This was

investigated for the case study (i.e., choosing IM2 as the intensity associated with the

peak of the c deaggregation in Step 4 of the proposed method), but the results were not

nearly as good. This is possibly because the peak of the deaggregation estimated in Step 4

is not close enough to the peak of the true deaggregation, particularly if the initial

estimate of the collapse fragility curve is very rough.

Figure 4.13: Collapse risk comparison of case study results from Section 3.5 and those

presented by Eads et al. (2013) for: (a) seismic hazard curve; (b) collapse fragility curve;

(c) c deaggregation.

The results of the Eads et al. (2013) case study are used to compare the performances of

the proposed method for two different intensity levels of IM2: the 20% cumulative

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 94

contribution recommended based on the case study in Section 3.5 and the 35%

cumulative contribution recommended based on the Eads et al. (2013) case study. A 90%

cumulative contribution to c is used for IM1 because this was the recommended level for

both case studies. Figure 4.14 compares the error in the mean c of the bootstrap samples

for the different IM2 selections. As expected, better results are produced when IM2 is

associated with a 35% cumulative contribution to c. Though the error is generally on the

order of 10% for N > 75 when IM2 is associated with a 20% cumulative contribution to c

(except for Figure 4.14(a) where the error is approximately 5% for all N shown), this is

more than the error that this set of intensity levels produced for the case study of Section

3.5 (see Figure 4.7). This suggests that the best-performing set of intensity levels is

specific to the collapse fragility and seismic hazard curve being considered.

Figure 4.14: Comparison of error in the mean c of the bootstrap samples with respect to

the true c as a function of N for different intensity levels using the Eads et al. (2013)

case study results. The initial guesses of the collapse fragility curve are = 0.4 and: (a)

= 0.5 g; (b) = 1 g; (c) = 1.5 g. Note: for description of legend, see Figure 4.7.

The results presented in Baker (2013) regarding the intensity levels that produced the

smallest standard deviation in c also support the idea that the best-performing set of

intensity levels is specific to the collapse fragility and seismic hazard curve considered.

Using three different seismic hazard curves with the same collapse fragility curve and

N = 40, Baker found a different set of optimum intensity levels for each case: 80% and

15%, 70% and 10%, and 90% and 20%, respectively, cumulative contributions to c. It

should be noted that Bakers results were not obtained using the proposed method: they

were based on simulating 1,000 sets of data from a known distribution of the collapse

fragility curve, estimating the collapse fragility curve at two intensity levels based on the

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 95

simulated data, and calculating c from the estimated fragility. Further research is

warranted regarding general (i.e., not specific to a case study) recommendations for

intensity levels; however, limited results suggest that cumulative contributions of at least

70% for IM1 and less than or equal to 35% for IM2 should be used.

4.6 Summary

This chapter dealt with statistical uncertainty in the collapse fragility and c, specifically

the uncertainty associated with using a small number of ground motions to estimate these

quantities. Different theoretical confidence intervals for the probability of collapse

conditioned on ground motion intensity that depend on the number of ground motions

used were discussed. Based on the recommendations of Agresti and Coull (1998), the

Wilson score confidence intervals are used because they are appropriate for all sample

sizes and estimated probabilities, and they have appropriate coverage probabilities.

Bootstrap techniques were used to quantify the uncertainty in the collapse fragility and c

as a function of the number of ground motions for the case study presented in Chapter 3.

A method for estimating c based on estimating the collapse fragility curve at only two

intensities was proposed. The underlying theory is that for equivalent computational

effort a better estimate of the collapse fragility can be obtained by using more ground

motions at fewer intensities as opposed to using fewer ground motions at more intensity

levels. The proposed method showed promising results based on a case study that

compares the computational effort in obtaining c and level of accuracy and uncertainty

in the estimate for this method and an IDA method. It was demonstrated that the

proposed method can significantly increase the reliability of the computed c while at the

same time significantly reducing the computational effort compared to the IDA method.

The proposed method estimates the collapse fragility curve at two intensity levels based

on the results of RHAs. The intensity levels are determined by their cumulative

contributions to c based on a deaggregation of c by intensity, which is updated each

time a point on the collapse fragility curve is estimated. The recommended cumulative

contribution levels for the case study are 90% for the first intensity and 20% for the

Chapter 4: Statistical Uncertainty in the Collapse Fragility 96

second intensity. These levels were chosen by comparing the performance of different

sets of intensity levels based on their convergence in the mean estimate of c to the true

value of c and the level of uncertainty in c estimate for both good and bad initial

estimates of the collapse fragility curve. It was found that the level of uncertainty in the c

estimate was: (1) not significantly affected by the initial estimate of the collapse fragility

curve; and (2) much less sensitive to the set of intensity levels used than the error in the

mean c estimate.

Limited studies suggest that the best set of intensity levels to use may depend on the

collapse fragility curve and seismic hazard curve being considered, so further

investigation in this area is warranted. However, the results suggest that intensities with

cumulative contributions of at least 70% for IM1 and less than or equal to 35% for IM2

should be used.

Chapter 5

5.1 Overview

This chapter focuses on spectral shape and structural response with a particular interest in

identifying what makes a particular record damaging to a particular structure. This issue

is studied from different perspectives including a numerical approach that looks at

individual terms in the equation of motion to identify conditions likely to cause large

changes in displacement and an approach based on the response of a single-degree-of-

freedom (SDOF) system to a half-sine acceleration pulse for different pulse durations,

areas under the pulse, and initial conditions. Formation of spectral shape including the

presence of local peaks and valleys and the slope of the spectrum in specific period

ranges is also discussed. A spectral shape typical of damaging records is identified, and a

metric for quantifying the spectral shape of a record called SaRatio is discussed. It is

shown that SaRatio is a better predictor of collapse intensity than other spectral shape

metrics currently used, and methods for incorporating SaRatio in collapse risk

assessments are discussed.

Ground motion records are commonly characterized by their response spectra, as the

response spectrum of a particular record describes the maximum acceleration, velocity, or

displacement response of elastic SDOF systems as a function of the fundamental period

and level of damping. Prediction of the response spectrum of a record has been studied

extensively, and a review of ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) developed

between 1964 and 2010 that provide the expected value and standard deviation of a

spectral ordinate at a given period conditioned on the magnitude, distance, fault

mechanism, and site conditions is provided by Douglas (2011). Since publication of the

report by Douglas, several new or updated GMPEs have been developed including, for

example, those for shallow crustal earthquakes in the western US as part of the NGA-

97

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 98

West2 project (PEER 2013), for crustal earthquakes in Europe and the Middle East

(Akkar et al. 2013), and for subduction zone earthquakes (Gregor et al. 2013).

While response spectra can be useful, they describe only the peak responses of elastic

SDOF systems and do not provide information about the number or sequence of large

displacement cycles a system experiences during a ground motion, which can

significantly affect the inelastic response. As noted by Bertero et al. (1976), the types of

excitations taht [sic] induce the maximum response in elastic and inelastic systems are

fundamentally different, and thus the elastic response spectrum is insufficient for

predicting the maximum inelastic dynamic response. Two records with similar spectra

may produce the same elastic response in a system, but one may cause significantly more

damage when inelastic action is considered.

Some of the first major studies to identify what features of a ground motion make it

particularly damaging were conducted by Bertero et al. (1976; 1978). In the latter study

nonlinear analytical models using near-fault records derived from acceleration recordings

during the 1971 San Fernando, California earthquake were used to show that the damage

observed in structures was primarily the result of severe, long duration acceleration

pulses in these records. In a later study by Anderson and Bertero (1987), the authors

concluded that the area under the acceleration pulse, which they refer to as the

incremental velocity, and not necessarily the amplitude of the pulse, is what makes a

record particularly damaging. They noted that records can be particularly damaging when

they contain a pulse that is long compared to the period of the system and has an effective

average acceleration greater than the systems seismic resistance coefficient. The authors

also noted that long duration acceleration pulses are not unique to near-fault records and

that the nonlinear structural response is sensitive to the duration of the pulse relative to

the period of the structure. These findings are consistent with earlier work (Jacobsen and

Ayre 1952) that studied the effects of the pulse area, shape, and duration on the elastic

response of SDOF systems subjected to a single acceleration pulse.

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 99

Since these studies significant research (e.g., Baez and Miranda 2000; Alavi and

Krawinkler 2001; Cuesta and Aschheim 2001; Menun and Fu 2002; Mavroeidis and

Papageorgiou 2003; Ruiz-Garca and Miranda 2005; Akkar and zen 2005; Baker

2007b; Baker and Cornell 2008) has been conducted into identifying near-fault, pulse-

like records and quantifying their potentially damaging effects on the structure,

particularly because measuring the intensity of the ground motion using the elastic

spectral acceleration at the structures fundamental period, as is commonly done, or in

combination with the spectral shape parameter often fails to accurately predict the

nonlinear structural response for these type of ground motions (Baker and Cornell 2008).

The focus of previous research has largely been on pulses in the ground velocity history,

but notable exceptions include the work of Sucuoglu et al. (1999) and Makris and Black

(2004) who, like Bertero, demonstrate that structural damage is more closely related to

acceleration pulses than velocity pulses. As noted by Sucuoglu et al. and Makris and

Black, the peak ground velocity (PGV) (the maximum value of the velocity pulse) can

properly indicate the damage potential of a record when this value is derived from a

dominant acceleration pulse; however, the PGV can also result from a series of short

duration acceleration pulses and may result in less damaging records. In particular,

Makris and Black showed that for structures with first-mode periods less than 4 s, near-

fault records in which the PGV is derived from a dominant acceleration pulse are

generally more damaging than those in which the PGV is the result of a series of short

duration pulses.

Many studies have found that incorporating information about the spectral shape (i.e.,

information beyond the ordinate at the fundamental period) or peak ground responses

improves the prediction of structural response. The studies discussed herein will focus on

the prediction of displacement-based responses and collapse as Taghavi and Miranda

(2006, Chapter 9) and more recently Bradley et al. (2010a) showed that approaches to

estimate deformation parameters often are not very good to estimate acceleration

demands and vice-versa. Some early studies used the relationship between PGV and peak

ground acceleration (PGA) as a rough approximation of spectral shape. The significance

of the PGV/PGA ratio was first noted by Newmark (1973) who found this ratio to vary

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 100

according to the site conditions of the recording station. This was later independently

verified by Seed et al. (1976). More recently, Zhu et al. (1988) and Tso et al. (1992)

showed that the ratio of PGA/PGV provides information on the frequency content of the

ground motion and hence provides a rough measure of spectral shape. In particular, Zhu

et al. found that the PGA/PGV ratio of ground motions could strongly influence the

displacement ductility demands on bilinear SDOF systems when records were scaled to a

common value of PGA. They found that the effect of this ratio on strength demands was

significantly reduced for systems with periods greater than 0.5 s when the records were

scaled to a common value of PGV; however, the same was not found for shorter period

systems.

Kennedy et al. (1984) considered the average spectral value between the fundamental

period of the structure and a lengthened period and noted that the relationship between

the average spectral value and the value of Sa(T1) influenced the nonlinear response of

the structure. In particular, they noted that when the average spectral value was greater

than Sa(T1), the ground motion would require less scaling beyond the yield level to

produce a certain ductility compared to a ground motion where the average spectral value

was less than Sa(T1). Sewell et al. (1996) noted that the damage potential of records was

related to the spectral shape (i.e., the spectral breadth, slope, etc. obtained from spectral

amplitudes at several frequencies over the frequency range of interest), and, for records

scaled to the same Sa(T1), the slope of the spectrum at T1 was related to the damage

potential of the record.

Ordaz and Prez-Rocha (1998) incorporated information about spectral shape into their

expression for estimating strength-reduction factors for SDOF systems by using the ratio

of the spectral displacement at the fundamental period (Sd(T1)) to the peak ground

displacement. They found that their expression was at least as accurate as existing

expressions with the additional benefit of being applicable to both firm and soft soil sites.

Akkar and Miranda (2004) found that inelastic displacement ratios (the ratio of peak

inelastic to elastic displacement) of short-period SDOFs were sensitive to the ratio of

spectral velocity at the fundamental period to the PGV, particularly for weak structures

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 101

with lateral strength ratios greater than four. By incorporating this spectral ratio into the

prediction of inelastic displacement ratios (and therefore peak deformations of short-

period inelastic systems), they were generally able to reduce dispersion in the results by

at least 50%.

Shome and Cornell (1999) found that the dispersion in maximum story drift was

substantially reduced when the response was conditioned on the spectral acceleration at

the second mode period (Sa(T2)) in addition to Sa(T1). Furthermore, they found that the

probability of collapse conditioned on Sa(T1) alone could be significantly different than

when the probability was conditioned on Sa(T2) or Sa(T3) given Sa(T1).

Carballo and Cornell (2000, Chapter 3) investigated various "form functions" to capture

global and local spectral shapes. They defined the global shape ratio as the ratio of the

moving window average of spectral ordinates centered around a softened effective

frequency (lengthened effective period) to the moving window average of spectral

ordinates centered around the fundamental frequency of the structure, which was then

normalized by the ratio of the median value of the spectral ordinate at the softened

effective frequency to the median spectral ordinate at the fundamental frequency, where

the median values are determined from a set of ground motions. The local shape ratio RLS

was defined as the ratio of the spectral ordinate at the fundamental period of vibration of

the structure to the moving window average of spectral ordinates at the fundamental

period. The authors noted that "a value of RLS considerably higher than unity most likely

determines the presence of a local peak . . . and a value lower than unity is likely related

to the presence of a local valley. They computed the response spectra using 100

equally spaced frequencies in logarithmic space ranging from 0.2 Hz to 25 Hz, and the

window size used to compute the moving average consisted of four frequencies. The

authors concluded that the global shape ratio was more important than the local shape

ratio in predicting the nonlinear behavior of structures.

acceleration at a given period to the spectral acceleration at the fundamental period

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 102

(Sa(T1)). The following provides a brief overview of some studies incorporating spectral

shape in this manner to improve the estimation of peak interstory drift ratios of nonlinear

systems.

Cordova et al. (2000) used a parameter called RSa that is defined as the ratio of spectral

acceleration at an elongated period (they recommended 2T1) to Sa(T1). They combine

this parameter with Sa(T1) to form a scalar intensity measure and find a significant

reduction in the dispersion of maximum interstory drift ratios conditioned on intensity.

(Note: discussion about scalar intensity measures based on spectral shape is provided in

Chapter 6. The focus of this chapter is on spectral shape measures that when used with

Sa(T1) (or any other spectral ordinate) provide a better estimation of peak structural

response than Sa(T1) alone. This study was referenced because it was one of the earliest

studies to formally define this spectral ratio.)

Jalayer (2003) found that the response of a 0.1 s SDOF is dependent on the spectral shape

ratio when a period of 2T1 or 3T1 is used. She also found that for a 20-story building

(which had a fundamental period of T1 = 3.96 s), the response was dependent on the

spectral shape factor when using a period close to the second mode period (T2 = 1.35 s).

The responses of these structures were typically limited to low levels of nonlinearity.

Baker and Cornell (2008) used a spectral shape ratio as part of a vector intensity measure

to predict the nonlinear structural response to pulse-like ground motions. After examining

periods less than and greater than T1, they found that using a given period of 2T1 was

effective for moderate to high levels of nonlinearity while using a given period of T1/3

was better for low levels of nonlinearity.

More recently, Bojrquez and Iervolino (2011) measured spectral shape via a parameter

called Np that is defined as the ratio of the average (geometric mean) value of spectral

accelerations between T1 and some period greater than T1 to the value of Sa(T1). They

found that averaging over a period range of T1 to 2T1 generally produced the best results

and that use of Np significantly improved prediction of maximum interstory drift ratio,

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 103

hysteretic energy demands, and damage over a wide range of nonlinearity levels

compared to using Sa(T1) alone. Furthermore, they found that averaging over a period

range as opposed to using the spectral value at a single ordinate generally provided better

results (less dispersion) in structural response estimates, especially for narrow-band

ground motions, and reduced the sensitivity to the choice of extended period (i.e., the

maximum period used for averaging or the period used for the single spectral ordinate).

Spectral shape is an important consideration when choosing which ground motions to use

for response history analysis. As demonstrated by previous studies the spectral shape of a

record can significantly influence the nonlinear response of a structure; however, the

spectral shape can also influence the linear response of a multiple degree of freedom

structure when using records scaled to a common Sa(T1) because of higher-mode effects.

Design codes often have provisions about the spectral shapes of the records used in

response history analysis. For example, ASCE 7-10 (2010) requires that the average

spectrum of records used in two-dimensional response history analysis cannot be less

than the design spectrum between a period range of 0.2T1 and 1.5T1. Recognizing that

spectral shape can play an important role in nonlinear structural response, the Design

Ground Motion Library (Power et al. 2007), which contains acceleration histories

suitable for response history analysis of various structures in California, evaluates the

spectral shape of a potential record on both (1) the mean squared error of spectral

ordinates over a period band with respect to a target spectrum and (2) the slope of the

records spectrum over the period band versus the slope of the target spectrum over the

same period band.

An important and relevant study conducted by Baker and Cornell (2006a) showed that

the structural response, including the probability of collapse, can be very sensitive to the

method used to select records when Sa(T1) is used to measure the ground motion

intensity. In this study, they selected records based on four different methods: (1)

arbitrarily (i.e., random selection without attempting to match any specific record

properties); (2) based on magnitude and distance; (3) based only on epsilon () at T1; and

(4) based on a spectral shape similar to the conditional mean spectrum, which uses

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 104

correlations of spectral values at different periods, using the mean magnitude, distance,

and values from probabilistic seismic hazard deaggregation. The spectral shape

parameter measures the difference in the spectral acceleration of a record at a given

period and the spectral acceleration predicted by a GMPE. More information on this

parameter is provided in Section 5.6. Baker and Cornell found that the first two methods

offered biased structural response estimates because the results were dependent on the

values of the records used; however, the latter two methods, which explicitly considered

in record selection, produced unbiased estimates of structural response. This

demonstrated that can be a particularly important proxy to spectral shape. Other

studies regarding the effect of on collapse intensity and how to adjust the collapse

fragility curve to account for this effect include those by Zareian and Krawinkler (2009)

and Haselton et al. (2011).

Another proxy to spectral shape includes the eta () parameter used by Mousavi et al.

(2011), which is a linear combination of the based on spectral acceleration and the

based on PGV. More information on this study is provided in Section 5.6, but the authors

demonstrated that this parameter is even more effective than (based on spectral

acceleration alone) at predicting the collapse intensity of structures.

Damage often occurs as a result of large displacement excursions, so as a first step in

understanding what makes a particular ground motion damaging to a particular system it

can be helpful to understand what causes large displacement excursions. To accomplish

this, individual terms in the equation of motion are examined to determine what

combinations of structural and ground motion properties lead to large displacement

excursions. The equation of motion is first written in its standard form as a function of

time and is then transformed to incremental form and rearranged to solve for the change

in displacement over an increment of time. Equation 5.1 presents the equation of motion

written as a function of time t

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 105

where m is the mass of the system, c is the damping coefficient, k is the lateral stiffness,

ug is the ground acceleration, and u , u , and u are the systems relative acceleration,

incremental form yields

where in front of a parameter denotes the change in value from time step i to time step

i+1. Rearranging Equation 5.2 to solve for the change in displacement over a given time

increment t gives

mug ,i mui cu i

u i = (5.3)

ki

Using Newmarks method (1959), a single-step integration method for solving the

equation of motion, Equation 5.3 can be rewritten as

mug ,i + au i + bui

u i = (5.4)

k i

where

c m (5.5)

ki = k i + +

t (t )2

m c (5.6)

a= +

t

m

b= + ct 1 (5.7)

2 2

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 106

and and are constants of Newmarks method that describe how the acceleration is

assumed to vary over the time increment t. To accurately capture the ground

acceleration and the response of the system, t must be small. For linear elastic systems,

using the t of the ground motion recording is generally adequate, but analysis of highly

nonlinear systems can require t values on the order of 10-4 s.

To find the change in displacement over a time period Nt, Equation 5.4 can be

rewritten as

N N mu

g ,i + au i + bui

u N +1 u1 = u i = (5.8)

i =1 i =1 ki

mug ,i cu i k i u i

ui = (5.9)

m

Equation 5.9 into Equation 5.8 yields

N N ( )

m ug ,i +1 + ug ,i +

4m

u i 2k i u i

u N +1 u1 = u i = t (5.10)

i =1 i =1 ki

which gives the change in displacement over a time period Nt (or equivalently from

time 1 to time N+1).

To understand what causes a large displacement increment over a given time period, it

helps to examine the terms in Equation 5.10. Equation 5.10 shows that the displacement

increment is a function of the mass, damping (via k ), and stiffness of the system as well

as the ground acceleration and the systems velocity and displacement conditions during

the time period.

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 107

system as it moves from zero displacement to a positive displacement peak, which

typically takes T/4 seconds, where T is the period of the system. For a linear elastic

system, k and k are positive constants and Equation 5.10 simplifies to

N N N

(ug ,i +1 + ug ,i ) + t ui 2k ui

4m

N

m

u N +1 u1 = ui = i =1 i =1 i =1 (5.11)

i =1 k

Because the displacement increment is positive for this example, terms in Equation 5.11

with positive values add to the response, while terms with negative values decrease the

response. The velocities and displacements of the system will, by definition, be positive

because the system is moving in the positive displacement direction. Due to the signs

associated with these terms in Equation 5.11, the velocity term will be positive and the

displacement term will be negative. The velocity decreases to zero as the system reaches

a displacement peak, so a large positive initial velocity (the velocity of the system as it

passes through zero displacement) can be a contributing factor to a large peak

displacement value.

What really causes a large displacement increment, though, is the ground acceleration,

specifically the summation of the ground acceleration values over the time period. This

can be thought of as the area under the ground acceleration, which is the incremental

velocity identified by Bertero and colleagues (1976; 1978). Strictly speaking, the

summation of ground accelerations term as it appears in Equations 5.10 and 5.11 (without

the mass) would need to be multiplied by a factor of t/2 to equal the area under the

ground acceleration using the midpoint integration rule, but for the purpose of this paper

it is useful to think of this term as the area under the ground acceleration because the two

are directly proportional. A large area under the ground acceleration over a given time

period can occur when the acceleration values are very large over a short period of time

(relative to the time period of interest), but this is not very common because these

acceleration values need to be much larger than neighboring values. Most often, large

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 108

areas occur when the ground acceleration sustains a positive or negative value over some

duration (i.e., a long duration pulse) that is significant with respect to the time period of

interest (i.e., a long duration relative to the period of vibration of the system). For the

example of the linear elastic system moving from zero to a positive displacement peak,

the displacement is maximized when the ground acceleration is negative with a large area

over T/4 and the system has a large positive velocity (momentum) as it passes through

zero displacement.

In general, the largest displacement increments usually occur when there is significant

area underneath the ground acceleration and the ground acceleration acts in the opposite

direction the system is moving (i.e., when the ground acceleration and velocity of the

system have different signs). This leads to a large value of the numerator in Equation

5.10. (Note that here the terms small and large are used to refer to the amplitude or

absolute value and not the sign.) The effects of the area under the ground acceleration and

the systems direction of motion are quantified in Section 5.4. Large displacement

increments in a given system can also be generated when the stiffness values k and k are

relatively small, which can happen when the system is yielding. This causes a small value

of the denominator in Equation 5.10. Obviously the combination of large area under the

ground acceleration, the system moving in the opposite direction of the ground

acceleration, and a small stiffness will also produce a large displacement increment.

This section examines factors influencing spectral shape including the area and duration

of individual pulses in the ground motion and the displacement and velocity of the system

when pulses begin acting on the system. In this document the term pulse is used to

refer to a segment of the ground acceleration history between zero crossings. The

formation of local spectral features such as peaks and valleys are also examined.

An earthquake ground motion can viewed as a series of individual acceleration pulses.

This section examines how different systems respond to a single half-sine pulse that is

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 109

derived from a recorded ground motion. Figure 5.1 shows the east-west component of the

ground acceleration recorded at the TCU110 station during the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan

earthquake, which is denoted TCU110E. This recording was obtained from the PEER

NGA database (Chiou et al. 2008). The pulse with the largest incremental velocity (the

area underneath the pulse) is highlighted in a contrasting color. This pulse starts at 43.14

s and has an area of 97.3 cm/s and a duration td of 1.30 s, where td is defined as the time

between zero crossings of the acceleration. Note that td is not equal to the Tp parameter

used by some researchers (e.g., Alavi and Krawinkler 2001; Baker and Cornell 2008) to

identify the period of velocity pulses.

Figure 5.1: TCU110E ground acceleration recording from the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake.

This pulse is idealized as a half-sine pulse with the same area and duration because

analytical solutions exist for this type of loading and are used later. The original pulse

and the idealized pulse (the equivalent pulse) are shown in Figure 5.2. Other

researchers (e.g., Jacobsen and Ayre 1952; Chopra 2001) have found that the response is

primarily dependent on the area and duration of the pulse while the shape of the pulse

plays a secondary role, especially when the pulse is short with respect to the period of the

system (e.g., td/T < ).

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 110

Figure 5.2: Acceleration pulse with the largest incremental velocity from the TCU110E

record and an equivalent half-sine pulse with same area and duration.

Figure 5.3 shows the linear elastic, 5%-damped displacement response spectrum for the

equivalent half-sine acceleration pulse. To remove the effect of initial conditions, each

system starts with at-rest initial conditions (i.e., zero displacement and zero velocity).

Two displacement spectra are shown: one only considers the peak response while the

pulse acts (the excluding free vibration case), and the other considers that the peak

response can occur at any time, either during or after the pulse. The latter is denoted the

including free vibration case. The two spectra are identical for T 2.64 s

(approximately td/T 0.5) because the peak response occurs while the pulse acts. For T >

2.64 s (approximately td/T < 0.5) the peak response occurs during the free vibration phase

and increases approximately linearly with T. Because an earthquake acceleration pulse

capable of producing any significant structural response would be followed by another

pulse (which would be in the opposite direction but of unknown duration and intensity),

the free vibration phase is not considered herein. All subsequent discussions and spectra

will disregard the free vibration phase after the pulse unless noted otherwise.

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 111

Figure 5.3: Displacement response spectrum for the equivalent half-sine acceleration

pulse using at-rest initial conditions.

Figure 5.3 shows that the spectral displacement (Sd) values increase sharply for 0.52 s < T

< 2.64 s (0.5 < td/T < 2.5, approximately). The sharp increase occurs because the peak

response of these systems occurs at the first local minima in the displacement response.

For systems where T < 0.52 s (td/T > 2.5), the peak response does not occur until at least

the second local minima. The peak response transitioning from later local minima to the

first local minima is shown in Figure 5.4(a). Systems where T > 2.64 s do not reach a

local minima (i.e., zero velocity) before the pulse ends, so the Sd value is taken as the

displacement at the end of the pulse. The peak response transitioning from the first local

minima to the end of the pulse is shown in Figure 5.4(b).

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 112

Figure 5.4: Displacement response and occurrence of peak response for selected systems

subjected to a half-sine acceleration pulse: (a) peak response transitioning to first local

minima; (b) peak response transitioning from first local minima to end of pulse. (Note the

different vertical scales.)

As seen in Figure 5.3, the Sd values approach an asymptote as T increases beyond 2.64 s.

The value of the asymptote can be found by solving the equation of motion for a system

subjected to a harmonic load to obtain the displacement response (a readily available

solution), then finding the equation constants using at-rest initial conditions, next writing

the displacement equation at time t = td (which is when systems where T >> td experience

their peak displacement), and finally taking the limit of the displacement as T approaches

infinity. When doing this one finds that for a system with at-rest initial conditions

subjected to a half-sine pulse, Sd approaches a value equal to half the area of the pulse

(Ap) multiplied by the pulse duration td. In other words

Aptd

lim S d (T ) =

T 2 (5.12)

As one might expect, this value is equal to the ground displacement at the end of the

pulse. When T >> td the system barely moves while the pulse acts (it will not move if

T ), and the relative displacement is due to the motion of the ground.

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 113

The 5%-damped displacement response spectrum shown in Figure 5.3 can be generalized

for a half-sine pulse of arbitrary area Ap and duration td. The generalized spectrum is

shown in Figure 5.5. The vertical axis is the spectral displacement normalized by the

spectral displacement of a system with an infinitely long period of vibration. The

horizontal axis is the period of the system normalized by the pulse duration. This is the

signature displacement spectral shape of a half-sine pulse for systems with at-rest

initial conditions. It increases sharply where the period of the system is between

approximately one and three times the pulse duration (1 < T/td < 3) and begins to flatten

out at larger periods. Knowing these shape features can be useful in deducing properties

about the acceleration input given a particular spectrum. For example, the period range

over which the Sd values sharply increase provides information about the duration of the

pulse. Though this spectrum is specific to half-sine pulses and systems with at-rest initial

conditions, some of its basic features are applicable to spectra from earthquake ground

motions. This will be discussed later.

pulse and at-rest initial conditions.

To emphasize the effect of the incremental velocity (i.e., the area of the pulse Ap) on the

response, Figure 5.6 shows how Sd increases with increasing incremental velocity. Figure

5.6(a) shows a half-sine acceleration pulse with different pulse amplitudes (p) while

Figure 5.6(b) shows the Sd normalized by the square of the pulse duration td versus the

period of the system normalized by td. For a given system and a given pulse duration (i.e.,

a given T/td), the spectral displacement is linearly related to incremental velocity.

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 114

Figure 5.6: Effect of half-sine pulse amplitude on displacement demands of SDOFs with

at-rest initial conditions: (a) acceleration pulse; (b) normalized displacement spectrum.

This section examines how the response to the same half-sine acceleration pulse is

affected by the displacement and velocity (d0p and v0p, respectively) conditions of the

system at the beginning of the pulse. Herein the term initial conditions is used to refer

to the state of the system (i.e., its displacement d0p and velocity v0p) at the onset of a

ground motion pulse. A T = 2.5-s system with 5% damping is used for illustration, and

the initial conditions are derived from the systems displacement and velocity conditions

during the TCU110E record shown in Figure 5.1. At 43.14 s when the pulse strikes, the T

= 2.5-s system has a relative displacement of 59.43 cm and a relative velocity of 120.21

cm/s. These values are used as the initial conditions for the equivalent half-sine pulse

shown in Figure 5.2 to study how the signs of the initial conditions affect the response.

The effect of the magnitude of the initial conditions on the response will be discussed

later.

Figure 5.7(a) shows the displacement response of the T = 2.5-s system to the half-sine

pulse shown in Figure 5.7(b) for five different initial conditions. Except for the case with

at-rest initial conditions, the magnitudes of the initial conditions are the same but the

signs vary in each case. Figure 5.7(a) demonstrates that the initial conditions can have a

significant effect on the response. The maximum displacements range from 28 cm (at-rest

initial conditions) to 89 cm (both systems with positive d0p). The two systems with

positive d0p conditions lead to the greatest maximum displacements because these

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 115

systems move in the same direction as the momentum created by the pulse (i.e., the

systems velocity is opposite the ground acceleration) for the majority of the pulse

duration. This is not surprising given the discussion in the previous section about the

terms in Equation 5.10 and what conditions lead to large displacement increments. In this

particular case, the sign of v0p does not affect the maximum response of the systems with

positive d0p, but it does affect the time at which the maximum displacement occurs. The

system with positive d0p and positive v0p reaches its peak of 89 cm after the pulse stops. If

only the peak displacement while the pulse acts is considered, the system with positive

d0p and positive v0p has a peak displacement of 83 cm.

Figure 5.7: Response to a half-sine pulse with different initial conditions: (a)

displacement response of a 2.5-s system; (b) half-sine acceleration pulse.

In this example the sign of v0p has a larger effect on the maximum response of systems

starting with a negative d0p. The system with negative d0p and negative v0p moves in the

same direction as the pulse for only the first 0.29 s, which is when it reaches it maximum

displacement of 77 cm. The system with negative d0p and positive v0p moves in the

opposite direction of the pulse momentum for the first 0.89 s. At this time it reaches a

local maximum of 45 cm, but this is smaller than its initial displacement of 59 cm

because the pulse counter-acts the motion of the system. Referring back to Equation 5.10,

it is not surprising that this system has the smallest peak displacement of all the (non-at-

rest) d0p and v0p combinations because the summation of the ground acceleration term and

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 116

the system velocity term oppose each other over most of the pulses duration, which

results in a smaller displacement increment.

The previous example considered how the peak displacement response to a particular

pulse varied for specific initial conditions: at-rest and for a particular value of d0p and a

particular value of v0p, with variations of the signs of the d0p and v0p values. To

understand in a more general way how the state of the system (the d0p and v0p conditions)

at the onset of the pulse affects the displacement response and, in particular, the peak

displacement demand, Figure 5.8(a)-(e) shows the peak displacement plotted as a

function of the time during the vibration cycle at which the pulse starts for various td/T

ratios. Like the previous example, this figure uses linear elastic, 5%-damped SDOF

systems and a positive-valued, half-sine acceleration pulse. The peak displacement of the

system is taken as the peak response while the pulse acts (i.e., the free vibration portion

of the response is not considered). The peak displacement is normalized by Sd0, the peak

displacement using at-rest initial conditions, so that the figure applies to half-sine pulses

of any area. Values larger than one on the vertical axis represent a measure of

amplification of displacement demands caused by the state of the system at the onset of

the pulse. Although a few systems have values smaller than one (i.e., some initial

conditions cause systems to experience responses smaller than they would experience

with at-rest initial conditions), in most cases initial conditions different than zero result in

an increased response.

The d0p and v0p conditions are derived from harmonic motion, an approximation to how

systems vibrate during earthquakes. The assumed initial displacement d0p of the system

normalized by some displacement amplitude dAmp is shown in Figure 5.8(f) as a function

of t/T, where t is the time at which the pulse arrives and T is the period of vibration of the

system. The v0p condition, normalized by 2dAmp, is also shown in Figure 5.8(f). The

displacement amplitude dAmp describes the peak displacement amplitude at which the

system was vibrating before the pulse hit and is defined with respect to Sd0. As Figure

5.8(a) demonstrates, increasing dAmp generally leads to an increase in peak

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 117

displacement, meaning that for a given pulse the peak response can be significantly

affected by the displacement amplitude of the cycle preceding the pulse.

Figure 5.8: (a)-(e) Peak displacement as a function of pulse arrival time t for various

amplitudes of initial conditions: (a) td/T = 0.1; (b) td/T = 0.3; (c) td/T = 0.5; (d) td/T = 0.75;

(e) td/T = 1.5; (f) initial conditions of the system as a function of pulse arrival time t.

The time during the displacement cycle at which the pulse hits also affects the response.

As an example, consider Figure 5.8(b) for td/T = 0.3 and dAmp = 2Sd0. The largest

response occurs when the pulse hits at approximately t/T = 0.45. The d0p and v0p

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 118

conditions at t/T = 0.45 in Figure 5.8(f) show that the displacement is slightly positive

and the velocity is negative when the pulse hits. Assuming the system vibrates

harmonically, the system will continue to move in the negative displacement direction

(i.e., have a negative velocity) until approximately t/T = 0.75, which is also when the

pulse stops (because the duration of the pulse is 0.3T and it starts at t/T = 0.45). This

means that for nearly the entire time the pulse was acting, the system was moving in the

same direction as the momentum imparted by the pulse. This is why the peak response

was larger when the pulse hit at t/T = 0.46 versus t/T = 0.93, the time associated with the

minimum response. When the pulse hits at t/T = 0.93, the displacement is negative but

close to zero and the velocity is positive and close to a local maximum (Figure 5.8(f)). In

this case the motion of the system and the momentum imparted by the pulse oppose each

other for almost the entire duration of the pulse.

The td/T ratio also determines how significantly the timing of the pulse affects the

response. If the pulse is very short with respect to the period of the system, the time at

which the pulse hits (i.e., the state of the system when the pulse hits) can significantly

affect the peak response as illustrated in Figure 5.8(a); however, these types of pulses

typically cause smaller displacements than longer duration pulses. One initial state could

cause the systems motion and the pulses momentum to be in the same direction for the

duration of the pulse whereas another initial state could cause them to oppose each other.

If the pulse is long with respect to the period of the system (e.g., td/T = 1.5), the time at

which the pulse hits has much less of a role because the system will move in the same

direction as the pulses momentum for part of the time and in the opposite direction for

the other part of the time. The effect of td/T ratio with respect to how significantly the

pulse arrival time affects the peak response can be seen by comparing the plots for td/T =

0.1 (Figure 5.8(a)) and td/T = 1.5 (Figure 5.8(e)) for a given displacement amplitude. For

example, when dAmp = 2Sd0 the normalized peak response varies from 0.3 to 3.0 for td/T

= 0.1, whereas it only varies from 2.0 to 2.6 for td/T = 1.5.

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 119

This section focuses on the peak response to a ground motion and the variation in

response for systems with similar periods and elastic versus inelastic systems. The

formation of spectral features such as peaks and valleys is also discussed.

The displacement response spectrum for the Chi-Chi ground motion is shown in Figure

5.9(a). Figure 5.9(b) displays the Time at Peak or T@P spectrum, which shows the

time in the ground acceleration history at which each system reaches its peak

displacement (i.e., the time at which the spectral displacement, Sd, or pseudo-spectral

acceleration ordinate occurs). As the T@P spectrum demonstrates, different SDOF

systems reach their peak displacement at different times during the ground motion. The

discontinuities in the T@P spectrum indicate that different portions of the ground motion

control the response of different systems. For example, the smooth Sd peak from T = 2.21

s to 3.10 s (Figure 5.9(a)) occurs because SDOF systems with periods in this range reach

their peak displacements at approximately the same time (at approximately 44 s as seen

in Figure 5.9(b)). Similarly, SDOF systems with periods of vibration between 3.29 s and

3.81 s reach their peak displacement approximately 41 s into the record.

Figure 5.9: TCU110E record: (a) displacement response spectrum; (b) Time at Peak

(T@P) spectrum.

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 120

responses occur at approximately the same time to understand why they exhibit different

amplitudes in their peak response, given that their peak response is controlled by the

same portion of the ground motion. For example, why is the T = 2.5-s system at the top of

the spectral peak while the T = 2.21-s and T = 2.8-s SDOF systems experience much

smaller peak displacements even though their peaks occur at approximately the same

time during the record? These three points are marked with an x on the displacement

spectrum in Figure 5.9(a). A relevant portion of the displacement history of these three

systems is shown in Figure 5.10(a) with the corresponding ground acceleration history

shown in Figure 5.10(b). The vertical lines at 43.14 s and 44.44 s denote the beginning

and end, respectively, of the acceleration pulse with the largest incremental velocity in

this record. The three systems reach their peak displacement (denoted by circles in Figure

5.10(a)) in the negative direction because a positive acceleration pulse tends to move the

systems in the negative direction.

A significant reason why the peak of the displacement spectrum occurs around T = 2.5 s

is because this system has very unfavorable initial conditions when the critical

acceleration pulse begins to act on the system. The initial conditions are described here as

unfavorable because they lead to larger displacement demands on the structure. Of all

the elastic systems subjected to this ground motion, systems at the top of the spectral

displacement peak near T = 2.5 s in Figure 5.9(a) represent a worst case scenario in

terms of initial conditions when the acceleration pulse hits, the area of the pulse (the

incremental velocity), and the duration of pulse with respect to the period of the system.

As Figure 5.10(a) shows, the T = 2.5-s system is about to reach a positive displacement

peak when the pulse starts. Once a system reaches a positive displacement peak, it

unloads and starts to move in the negative displacement direction. The acceleration pulse

provides additional momentum for the system to move in the negative displacement

direction, which increases the response. This particular pulse also has the largest

incremental velocity of any pulse in the ground motion, which means it imparts the most

momentum. Finally, the duration of this pulse is 1.3 s, which, when paired with the initial

conditions of the system, means that it acts nearly the entire time that the system is

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 121

moving in the negative displacement direction (it takes approximately T/2 s to move

between local maxima and minima).

Figure 5.10: TCU110E record: (a) displacement response for systems in the spectral

displacement peak; (b) ground acceleration.

The 2.21-s and 2.8-s SDOF systems experience smaller peak displacements because the

initial conditions when the pulse starts to act are more favorable compared to the 2.5-s

system. The T = 2.8-s system is at the toe of the spectral peak because the combination of

initial conditions when the critical pulse begins to act and pulse duration relative to the

period of vibration of the system is more benign than for the T = 2.5-s system. Figure

5.10(a) shows that, time-wise, the 2.8-s system has completed approximately of its

displacement cycle between the local minima at t = 42.36 s and the start of the critical

pulse at t = 43.14 s. The system needs to continue moving in the positive displacement

direction for approximately T/4 (approximately 0.7 s) before it can start moving in the

negative displacement direction, which is the direction of the pulses momentum. The

result is that the motion of the 2.8-s system and the momentum imparted by the pulse

oppose each other longer than they did for the 2.5-s system. In addition to the timing of

the initial conditions, the displacement amplitude of the 2.8-s system in previous cycles is

smaller than the amplitude of the 2.5-s system, which as discussed in Section 5.4.1.2

affects the peak response to a pulse. Finally, the pulse stops acting before the 2.8-s

system finishes moving in the negative displacement direction, so as the system is

moving towards a negative displacement peak, the momentum imparted by the next pulse

is in the positive direction, which decreases the peak response. Though this also occurs

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 122

for the 2.5-s system, the pulse stops acting much closer to where the 2.5-s system reaches

its negative displacement peak.

Though the T = 2.21-s and 2.8-s systems have approximately the same displacement

amplitudes in previous cycles, the 2.21-s system has a greater peak displacement because

it has less benign initial conditions (it is just starting to move in the negative

displacement direction when the pulse starts) and the pulse acts the entire time the system

is moving in the negative direction. Even though the pulse acts approximately the entire

time the 2.21-s and 2.5-s systems move in the negative displacement direction and both

systems have approximately the same displacement when the pulse starts, the 2.21-s

system does not reach a peak displacement as large as the 2.5-s system because the

former slows down considerably and eventually unloads prior to the end of the pulse.

Additionally, the 2.21-s system has a smaller displacement amplitude in the previous

cycle compared to the 2.5-s system.

The previous section examined conditions leading to differences in spectral ordinates

among systems in the peak of a displacement spectrum, namely favorable or

unfavorable combinations of: (a) the state of the system when a pulse hits (i.e., the

displacement and velocity); (b) the area under the acceleration pulse; and (c) the duration

of the pulse with respect to the period of the system. Therefore, spectral shape is a

combination of the characteristics of individual pulses contained in the ground motion

and the initial conditions of the systems when the critical pulses arrive. Smooth spectral

regions indicate that the peak responses of those systems are controlled by the same

portion of the ground motion (i.e., adjacent systems reach their maximum displacements

at approximately the same time). For the example ground motion in Figure 5.9 this occurs

most notably for the smooth spectral peaks from T = 2.21 s to 3.10 s and from T = 3.29 s

to 3.81 s.

Smooth spectral valleys can also occur, but these are less common. Unlike smooth

spectral peaks, smooth (i.e., U-shaped) spectral valleys are formed by benign

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 123

combinations of system and pulse properties that create reduced responses (e.g., the

system moving in the opposite direction of the pulse momentum). When the spectrum

tends toward a smooth valley, the response to that segment of the ground motion can

become so small that it is no longer the maximum response, and the maximum

displacement is produced by a different portion of the ground motion. When this occurs a

V-shaped valley is often formed in the spectrum, such as the valley at T = 3.29 s in

Figure 5.9. The peak response shifting from one portion of the ground motion to another

is illustrated in Figure 5.11, which shows the displacement history for T = 3.19 s, 3.29 s,

and 3.39 s. The peak displacement of the 3.19-s system occurs just prior to 44 s (at t =

43.75 s). The local peak around this time produces the spectral displacement for systems

from T = 3.11 s to 3.28 s (Figure 5.9). As the period increases from 3.19 s to 3.29 s, the

displacement at the local peak just prior to 44 s decreases while the displacement at the

local peak just after 41 s increases. When the period reaches 3.29 s, the displacement at

the local peak just after 41 s becomes slightly higher (by 1 cm) than that of the local peak

just before 44 s. As the period increases from 3.29 s to 3.39 s, the local peak just after 41

s continues to grow and produces the spectral displacement for systems from T = 3.29 s

to 3.81 s (Figure 5.11 and Figure 5.9).

Figure 5.11: TCU110E displacement response of systems near the spectral displacement

valley at T = 3.29 s, illustrating the peak displacement shifting from one local maxima to

another as the period changes.

Examination of the displacement and T@P spectra in Figure 5.9 shows that the V-

shaped valleys or abrupt changes in the slope of the displacement spectrum, except those

in the very short period range, are created when there is a change in the controlling

portion of the ground motion (i.e., when there are large discontinuities in the T@P

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 124

spectrum). Systems located where there is a shift in controlling portion of the ground

motion contain at least two local peaks with amplitudes approximately equal to the

spectral displacement (obviously at least one of the peaks exactly equals the spectral

displacement). The two local peaks can be in opposite displacement directions (i.e., one

positive and one negative) or can be in the same direction, such as the 3.29-s system in

Figure 5.11.

As discussed in previous sections, peaked regions in the displacement spectrum are often

created by some SDOF systems having more unfavorable initial conditions than others

when hit by long duration acceleration pulses, among other factors. When systems in a

peaked elastic spectral region experience yielding prior to the arrival of the critical

acceleration pulse, the initial conditions for the critical acceleration pulse will be different

and in most cases more benign than those experienced by the elastic system. This is why

systems in a peaked elastic spectral region often have smaller inelastic responses

compared to elastic responses. Conversely, when systems are in the valley of an elastic

spectral region, often because they had favorable initial conditions, inelastic systems with

prior yielding excursions will exhibit different initial conditions that in most cases will

not be as benign as those of the elastic system, and therefore, the inelastic systems will

typically exhibit an increased response compared to the elastic systems. This partially

explains why some researchers (e.g., Baker and Cornell 2006a; Haselton et al. 2011) have

recently found that for the same Sa(T1) value, records with a peaked shape at or near T1

tend to be less damaging than records without a peaked shape at or near T1.

Figure 5.12 compares the elastic and inelastic displacement response spectra of the same

record used in the previous section. The inelastic systems are elastic, perfectly plastic

bilinear systems with R values of 2 and 4, where R is the ratio of the strength required for

elastic behavior to the strength of the actual system. As seen in Figure 5.12, the elastic

spectral peak from T = 2.21 s to 3.10 s disappears in the inelastic spectra.

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 125

Figure 5.12: Elastic and inelastic displacement response spectra for the TCU110E record.

A selected portion of the elastic and inelastic displacement histories for T = 2.5 s is

shown in Figure 5.13(a) along with the ground acceleration history in Figure 5.13(b). It is

clear that at the start of the pulse slightly after 43 s the initial conditions of the inelastic

systems are different than the unfavorable initial conditions that led to the large peak in

the elastic displacement spectrum at 2.5 s. In particular, Figure 5.13 shows that both

inelastic systems exhibit smaller displacements and velocities at the onset of the critical

acceleration pulse than those in the elastic system. The smaller displacement amplitudes

lead to less potential energy stored as strain energy in the system, which translates to

significantly smaller peak velocities, and as a result the inelastic systems have decreased

peak responses compared to the elastic system. The inelastic systems with R values of 2

and 4 reach peak displacements that are approximately 65% and 60%, respectively, of the

91 cm peak displacement reached by the elastic system.

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 126

Figure 5.13: TCU110E record: (a) displacement history for T = 2.5 s; (b) ground

acceleration.

This section focuses on the spectral shape of damaging records and discusses why these

records have distinct spectral shapes and what features in the ground motion give rise to

this shape. Results from the case study of the 4-story office building with steel special

moment-resisting frames described in Chapter 3 are used. Full details of the case study

including structural geometry and design, modeling, site, seismic hazard and the ground

motion set are provided in Chapter 3.

As discussed in Chapter 3, the median collapse intensity of the structure under the set of

274 ground motions is Sd(T1) = 45.3 cm (Sa(T1) = 1.03 g), where T1 = 1.33 s. The

displacement spectra of records producing the 10 lowest and 10 highest collapse

intensities are shown in Figure 5.14, where all records are scaled to Sd(T1) = 10 cm. As

shown in this figure, the spectral shape of the damaging records (those with the lowest

collapse intensities) is significantly different than the spectral shape of the benign

records (those with the highest collapse intensities). With the exception of one record 1,

1

This record is from the 1999 Duzce, Turkey earthquake and was recorded at the Lamont 375 station

(PEER NGA record 1617, first horizontal component). It is not surprising that the spectral shape of this

record does not follow the trend of the other damaging records. This record has unusually high ordinates in

the short period range (e.g., Sd(0.4s) = 31 cm as seen in Figure 5.14) caused by unusual high frequency

content in the record and leads to a collapse mechanism in the 4th (top) story. The overwhelming majority

of the 274 records lead to a collapse mechanism involving the lower three stories.

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 127

which is shown with a thin red line, the damaging records generally exhibit sharply

increasing spectral ordinates for periods greater than T1. The benign records, on the other

hand, exhibit relatively constant or slightly decreasing spectral ordinates for periods

greater than T1.

Figure 5.14: Displacement spectra of records producing the 10 lowest and 10 highest

collapse intensities, where records are scaled to a common value of Sd(T1).

Why do the damaging records generally exhibit sharply increasing spectral ordinates for

periods greater than T1? A related question is what in the ground motion makes these

records damaging to this particular structure. Recall Figure 5.5 that presents the

normalized displacement response spectrum for a half-sine pulse with at-rest initial

conditions. Figure 5.14 shows that the spectral ordinates sharply increase over a period

range between approximately one and three times the pulse duration (td < T < 3td).

Though this spectrum was for a single pulse and not a ground motion, the individual

pulses that comprise a ground motion give rise to the spectral shape. This will be further

explored by examining selected damaging records in detail.

The first damaging record considered is the north-south component of the ground

acceleration recorded at the TCU063 station during the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan

earthquake, which is denoted TCU063N. The record is shown in Figure 5.15, where all

plots are scaled to Sd(T1) = 10 cm. The 5%-damped displacement and T@P spectra are

shown in Figure 5.15(a) and Figure 5.15(b), respectively. The vertical lines in these

figures separate the spectra into regions based on the pulse that was acting when the

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 128

system reached its peak (spectral) displacement. All SDOF systems that fall between

adjacent vertical lines reach their peak displacements during the same pulse. Figure

5.15(c) shows the displacement spectra for the full motion and for the pulse in the ground

motion with the largest incremental velocity, which occurs slightly after 40 s into the

record. Two spectra are shown for the pulse: one computed using at-rest initial conditions

and the other computed using the displacement and velocity conditions of the system

from the full ground motion at the start of the pulse. The pulse spectra in Figure 5.15(c)

only consider the response while the pulse acts (i.e., they do not consider peak responses

during free vibration or subsequent parts of the ground motion). The pulse with the

largest incremental velocity, which is shown in Figure 5.15(d) with a relevant portion of

the ground acceleration history, starts at t = 40.37 s and has a duration (td) of 1.66 s.

Figure 5.15: TCU063N record scaled to Sd(T1) = 10 cm: (a) displacement response

spectrum; (b) T@P spectrum; (c) displacement response spectra including spectra for the

pulse with the largest incremental velocity; (d) ground acceleration history.

Similar to the other damaging records in Figure 5.14, this record generally exhibits

sharply increasing Sd ordinates for periods greater than T1 = 1.33 s. The plots comprising

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 129

Figure 5.15 show that this increasing spectral shape is primarily the result of the pulse

with the largest incremental velocity. The T@P spectrum (Figure 5.15(b)) shows that a

wide range of periods (practically all between 1.1 s and 4.0 s) reach their peak response

during a short window of time (from t = 40.91 s to t = 44.32 s), which includes the largest

incremental velocity pulse and approximately two seconds following the pulse as shown

in Figure 5.15(d). The spectrum of the pulse with at-rest initial conditions (Figure

5.15(c)) forms a base for the spectral shape of the full ground motion. This pulse has a

duration of td = 1.66 s, so the sharp increase in spectral ordinates greater than T1 is

consistent with the sharply increasing spectral ordinates in the range of approximately td

< T < 3td that were observed for a half-sine pulse with at-rest initial conditions (Figure

5.5).

As previously mentioned in Section 5.4.1.2, when the initial conditions from the ground

motion are used to compute the pulse spectrum instead of at-rest initial conditions, the

spectral values typically increase. The initial conditions also result in a more jagged

spectral shape compared to the relatively smooth shape of the spectrum with at-rest initial

conditions (Figure 5.15(c)). Because the pulse with the largest incremental velocity

controls the peak response of most systems with T > 1.68 s, the spectrum of the pulse

with the initial conditions from the ground motion approaches or matches spectrum of the

full ground motion for this period range (Figure 5.15(c)). The only reason that the spectra

do not match between T = 2.49 s and 4 s is because these systems reach their peak

displacement within the half-cycle of displacement following the end of pulse.

The spectral shape of this damaging record, specifically the sharply increasing spectral

displacement ordinates for periods greater than T1, is caused by the pulse with the largest

incremental velocity. This pulse is also the main reason why this ground motion is so

damaging to this particular structure. Figure 5.16(a) shows the story drift ratio (SDR)

history in the first story of the structure for two ground motion intensities: one that causes

significant inelastic behavior (Sa(T1) = 0.5 g) and one that causes collapse (Sa(T1) = 0.6

g). The unscaled ground acceleration history is shown in Figure 5.16(b). As Figure 5.16

shows, the pulse with the largest incremental velocity causes a major inelastic excursion.

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 130

In addition to its large incremental velocity, this pulse is particularly damaging because

its duration (1.66 s) is close to the first-mode period of the structure (1.33 s), and the

pulse imparts momentum for approximately an entire displacement cycle. It is not

surprising that the structure collapses in the positive displacement direction because the

pulse with the largest incremental velocity has negative acceleration amplitudes and

therefore imparts momentum on the structure in the positive direction.

Figure 5.16: TCU063N record: (a) 1st story drift ratio history; (b) unscaled ground

acceleration history.

Not all damaging records are so dominated by a single pulse. Typically different pulses

control different period ranges of the response spectrum, and significant inelastic

excursions occur at multiple pulses. This is the case for the damaging record shown in

Figure 5.17, which is the north-south component of the ground acceleration recorded at

the TCU055 station during the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake, which is denoted

TCU055N, and is scaled to Sd(T1) = 10 cm. The 5%-damped displacement spectrum

and the T@P spectrum in Figure 5.17(a) and Figure 5.17(b), respectively, demonstrate

that different pulses control different period ranges. The pulse and full motion spectra in

Figure 5.17(c) show that unlike the previous damaging record a single pulse does form

the basis for the spectral shape for all T > T1, especially between T = 3.2 s and 4 s. The

selected pulse, which is shown in Figure 5.17(d) with the ground acceleration history,

starts at t = 19.26 s and lasts for td = 0.96 s, and it drives the peak elastic response of

SDOF systems between T = 2.24 s and 3.19 s. Quotation marks are used because a pulse

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 131

was previously defined as a segment of acceleration between zero crossings. The pulse

selected for this ground motion is comprised of 0.57 s of positive acceleration values

followed by 0.04 s of negative acceleration values followed by 0.35 s of positive

acceleration. The two positive segments of the pulse contain the largest and third

largest incremental velocities (measured between zero crossings) of any pulses in the

ground motion. Because the negative segment is short relative to the positive segments,

the three segments are treated as a single pulse for the purposes of linking the time

domain to the spectral regions. This pulse highlights that the current definition of

incremental velocity as the area under the ground acceleration history between zero

crossings is not always appropriate for fully capturing the damage potential of a record.

Figure 5.17: TCU055N record scaled to Sd(T1) = 10 cm: (a) displacement response

spectrum; (b) T@P spectrum; (c) displacement response spectra including spectra for

selected pulse; (d) ground acceleration history.

shows that non-zero (i.e., not at-rest) initial conditions at the onset of the pulse typically

increase the peak displacement response relative to the response obtained using at-rest

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 132

initial conditions and that the increase can be significant in some cases. As shown in

Figure 5.17(c), the at-rest spectrum of the pulse is relatively flat for T > 3 s. Despite the

shape differences between this pulse and a half-sine pulse, the overall shape of the at-

rest pulse spectrum and the flattening at periods greater than 3td is consistent with the

at-rest pulse spectrum for a half-sine pulse (Figure 5.5). This is illustrated more clearly in

Figure 5.18. Figure 5.18(a) shows the selected ground acceleration pulse and an

equivalent half-sine pulse with the same duration and incremental velocity as the pulse,

and Figure 5.18(b) shows the elastic displacement spectra of the pulses using at-rest

initial conditions. Despite the strikingly different shapes of the pulses in Figure 5.18(a),

the shapes of their displacement response spectra are remarkably similar as shown in

Figure 5.18(b).

Figure 5.18: Pulse from the TCU055N record and an equivalent half-sine pulse:

(a) ground acceleration; (b) displacement response spectrum.

Even when considering the initial conditions imposed by the ground motion, the selected

pulse fails to explain why increasing spectral ordinates are observed in the full motion

between T = 3.2 s and 4 s (Figure 5.17(c)). The T@P spectrum in Figure 5.17(b) shows

that the increasing spectral ordinates in this period range are the result of three different

pulses. (As before, the quotation marks are used to denote that a segment of

acceleration containing positive and negative values is being used.) These pulses start

at t = 26.63 s, 28.78 s, and 23.22 s, respectively. The spectra for two of the three pulses

are shown in Figure 5.19, which demonstrates that these pulses are responsible for the

increasing spectral ordinates between T = 3.2 s and 4 s. For clarity the at-rest pulse

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 133

spectra are not included in this figure, and only the spectra using the initial conditions

from the ground motion are shown.

Figure 5.19: Displacement spectra of the TCU055N record scaled to Sd(T1) = 10 cm,

including two pulse spectra.

The increasing spectral ordinates for T > T1, a characteristic of the damaging ground

motions in this case study, are created by individual pulses or particular segments of the

acceleration history with significant incremental velocities. These time domain features

are also what cause large inelastic excursions, damage, and possible collapse of the

structure. This particular record is so damaging because it contains multiple pulses with

significant incremental velocities in the same direction (in this case, positive), leading to

a ratcheting-type response in the negative displacement direction. The damaging effects

of these pulses are shown in Figure 5.20, which presents the SDR history of the first story

in Figure 5.20(a) and the unscaled ground acceleration in Figure 5.20(b). The pulses

highlighted in Figure 5.20(b) include the pulses from Figure 5.17 and Figure 5.19. As

Figure 5.20 demonstrates, the significant inelastic excursions occur as the result of the

pulses with significant incremental velocity. Given that these pulses all have positive

incremental velocities, it is not surprising that the structure collapses in the negative

displacement direction.

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 134

Figure 5.20: TCU055N record: (a) 1st story drift ratio history; (b) ground acceleration

history.

Figure 5.21 shows the 5%-damped displacement response spectra for 60 records used in

the case study, which comprise three groups of records: 20 with the lowest collapse

intensities (Sa(T1)col) (i.e., in the lower tail of the collapse fragility curve) (Figure

5.21(a)), 20 closest to the median collapse intensity (Figure 5.21(b)), and 20 with the

highest collapse intensities (i.e., in the upper tail of the collapse fragility curve) (Figure

5.21(c)). All records are scaled to Sd(T1) = 10 cm. For reference, the mean collapse

intensity of the records in Figure 5.21(a) is Sa(T1)col = 0.55 g compared to mean values of

Sa(T1)col = 1.03 g and 2.37 g for the records in Figure 5.21(b) and Figure 5.21(c),

respectively. These Sa(T1)col values correspond to Sd(T1)col = 24 cm, 45 cm, and 104 cm,

respectively, for Figure 5.21(a, b, and c) and indicate that records in Figure 5.21(c) must

be scaled up over four times, on average, relative to those in Figure 5.21(a) to cause

collapse. In other words, the 20 records in Figure 5.21(a) require an intensity to produce

collapse that is half of the median collapse intensity of all the records in the MRCD137

ground motion set, meaning they can be considered twice as damaging as the 20 records

in Figure 5.21(b). Meanwhile the 20 records in the third group shown in Figure 5.21(c)

need to be scaled to approximately double the intensity of those in the second group

shown in Figure 5.21(b), meaning they are roughly half as damaging as the 20 in the

second group. Similarly, the first group of ground motions (those whose spectra are

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 135

damaging than those in the third group whose spectra are shown in Figure 5.21(c).

Figure 5.21: Comparison of displacement spectra for records with the (a) lowest;

(b) median; and (c) highest collapse intensities, where all records are scaled to the same

Sd(T1).

A geometric mean spectrum indicated by a thick dashed line is added to each plot in

Figure 5.21 to illustrate that, on average, there is a distinct difference in the spectral shape

of the three groups of records: the lower the collapse intensity, the sharper the increase of

spectral ordinates or, equivalently, the steeper the average slope of the spectra for T > T1.

Does this mean that a record with sharply increasing spectral ordinates for T > T1 will be

damaging (i.e., have a low collapse intensity) to a particular structure? Not necessarily.

As previously discussed, the shape of the spectrum is related to the duration and intensity

of the pulses contained in the ground motion (Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6) as well as the

state of the system (the initial conditions) when those pulses act on the structure

(Figure 5.8). Sharply increasing spectral ordinates for T > T1 indicate that the record has

one pulse or multiple pulses that impose significant displacement demands on elastic

SDOFs. If the increasing ordinates are primarily due to a single pulse, it is likely the

record will be damaging. If the increasing ordinates are due to a series of pulses,

however, the damage potential will also depend on the signs of the incremental velocities

of these pulses. If the incremental velocities of all or most of these pulses have the same

sign (e.g., all or most are positive), they will tend to push the structure in the same

direction and their damaging effects will be cumulative, leading to a ratcheting-type

behavior. This was the case for the record in Figure 5.20. On the other hand, if some of

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 136

the controlling pulses have positive incremental velocities while others have negative

values, the structure will likely experience significant inelastic excursions in both

displacement directions, and some pulses might re-center the structure or offset some of

the residual displacement caused by previous pulses. In this case it will typically take a

higher ground motion intensity to collapse the structure compared to a record that

primarily pushes the structure in one direction. Note that, among many other factors, the

effects of cyclic deterioration in the strength and stiffness of structural components can

also influence how a system responds to a pulse as severe deterioration may make the

structure less likely to experience a significant reduction in residual displacement.

component of the ground acceleration recorded at the TCU057 station during the 1999

Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake, which is denoted TCU057N. This record has the median

collapse intensity (Sa(T1)col = 1.03 g), but it displays sharply increasing spectral ordinates

similar to the damaging records. Figure 5.22 shows that the displacement spectra for this

record and a record with one of the lowest collapse intensities (which appears in Figure

5.21(a)) are very similar. Both records in Figure 5.22 are scaled to Sd(T1) = 10 cm.

Figure 5.22: Comparison of spectra for records with similar spectral shapes but

significantly different collapse intensities.

Figure 5.23, which presents the SDR history of the first story in Figure 5.23(a) and the

unscaled ground acceleration in Figure 5.23(b) for the TCU057N record (the record with

the median collapse intensity in Figure 5.22), shows that there are significant inelastic

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 137

excursions in both displacement directions. Some pulses offset some of the large inelastic

displacements caused by previous pulses (e.g., the pulse starting just after 45 s that moves

the system in the positive displacement direction after the pulse starting around 44 s

caused significant inelastic displacements in the negative direction). On the other hand,

the record with the low Sa(T1)col in Figure 5.22 experiences significant inelastic

excursions in only one direction and collapses at an intensity of Sa(T1) = 0.59 g. (Note

that the displacement response history to this record is not shown.) This explains why,

despite the similar spectral shapes of the two records shown in Figure 5.22, one record

must be scaled to a much greater intensity than the other to collapse the structure.

Figure 5.23: TCU057N record: (a) 1st story drift ratio history; (b) ground acceleration

history.

Limited investigations were conducted related to predicting which records would be most

damaging from a group of records with similar spectral shapes. These investigations

included comparing the spectrum and T@P due to only positive displacement values to

the spectrum and T@P due to only negative displacement values to provide some insight

into the number of pulses controlling the spectrum and the balance between pulses with

significant positive and negative incremental velocities. The investigations were

inconclusive, and more work is needed in this area.

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 138

Up to this point discussion of spectral shape has focused on the displacement spectrum as

the structural damage and collapse caused by an earthquake are primarily the result of

lateral deformations. Nevertheless, the remainder of this section will focus on the pseudo-

acceleration response spectrum to facilitate direct comparisons between different

measures of spectral shape including epsilon (), which is defined as the number of

logarithmic standard deviations a pseudo-acceleration spectral ordinate of a ground

motion is from the median ordinate predicted by a ground motion prediction equation

(GMPE) at a given period (Baker and Cornell 2005b). Given that a subsequent section

discusses ground motion selection, focusing on the pseudo-acceleration spectrum also

makes sense as many structural engineering design documents use this spectrum and

many earthquake engineering professionals are more familiar with the pseudo-

acceleration spectrum.

To make it clearer how the spectral shape changes from the displacement to the pseudo-

acceleration domain, Figure 5.21 is re-plotted using pseudo-acceleration instead of

displacement. Figure 5.24 presents the 5%-damped pseudo-acceleration response spectra

for 60 records used in the case study: 20 with the lowest collapse intensities (Sa(T1)col)

(Figure 5.24(a)), 20 closest to the median collapse intensity (Figure 5.24(b)), and 20 with

the highest collapse intensities (Figure 5.24(c)). All records are scaled to Sa(T1) = 0.23 g

(Sd(T1) = 10 cm, the same ordinate used in Figure 5.21), and the thick dashed line

indicates the geometric mean spectrum of the records in each plot. Comparison of Figure

5.21 and Figure 5.24 shows that differences in spectral shape are much easier to see in the

displacement domain.

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 139

Figure 5.24: Comparison of pseudo-acceleration spectra for records with the (a) lowest;

(b) median; and (c) highest collapse intensities, where all records are scaled to the same

Sa(T1).

Despite the fact that, as previously mentioned, the spectral shape is not a perfect predictor

of collapse intensity, a definite trend is observed when comparing the mean spectra in

Figure 5.24 (or Figure 5.21). To quantify the spectral shape a parameter called SaRatio is

used. SaRatio is defined as Sa(T1) normalized by the geometric mean of spectral

acceleration values over a period range. That is

Sa(T1 ) (5.13)

SaRatio =

Saavg (T1 [a, b])

where Saavg(T1[a, b]) is the geometric mean of spectral acceleration values between

periods aT1 and bT1, and a and b are non-negative constants such that a b. Note that

the value of SaRatio does not change when the ground motion is scaled to different

intensities via amplitude scaling. SaRatio is a measure of spectral shape that provides

information about how high or low the value of Sa(T1) is relative to spectral ordinates at

neighboring periods. SaRatio < 1 indicates that the value of Sa(T1) is less than the mean

value of the surrounding spectral ordinates and, depending on the period range used, can

suggest a valley in the spectrum near T1. SaRatio > 1, on the other hand, indicates that the

value of Sa(T1) is greater than the mean value of the surrounding spectral ordinates and,

again depending on the period range used, can possibly indicate at peak in the spectrum

at or near T1.

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 140

To illustrate the difference in spectral shape that SaRatio quantifies, the spectra of two

records from the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake are shown in Figure 5.25, where both

records are scaled to Sa(T1) = 0.2 g. The legend in Figure 5.25 indicates the station name

and orientation of each recording. A horizontal line indicating the value of Saavg(T1[0.2,

3]) and a vertical line at T1 are also included in the figure 2. The record in Figure 5.25(a)

has SaRatio = 0.72 and has a spectral valley at T1 while the record in Figure 5.25(b) has

SaRatio = 2.98 but is not in a peak. As one might expect by looking at the difference in

spectral shape, the two records produce very different responses for the case study

structure when scaled to the same value of Sa(T1). The record in Figure 5.25(a) causes the

case study structure to collapse at Sa(T1) = 0.51 g whereas the record in Figure 5.25(b)

does not cause collapse until the intensity reaches more than four times that value at

Sa(T1) = 2.17 g.

Figure 5.25: Pseudo-acceleration spectra for records scaled to a common value of Sa(T1)

with (a) SaRatio < 1; (b) SaRatio > 1.

SaRatio is a direct measure of a records spectral shape because it measures how large

Sa(T1) is relative to ordinates at neighboring periods. Another measure of spectral shape

is , which is an indirect measure or a proxy to spectral shape because it measures the

difference between the Sa(T1) value of a record and the expected (mean) value of Sa(T1)

based on many ground motions with similar causal events (magnitude, fault type, etc.),

2

In this document Saavg is computed using periods uniformly spaced between aT1 and bT1 at intervals of

0.01 s unless noted otherwise.

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 141

site-to-source distances, and site characteristics. Because compares the actual and

expected values of the spectral ordinate at only a single period, it cannot directly measure

spectral shape.

Figure 5.26 compares the spectral shape of four records as measured by SaRatio and ,

where SaRatio is computed using Saavg(T1[0.2, 3]), and is computed using the 2008

Boore and Atkinson (BA08) GMPE (Boore and Atkinson 2008). The NGA record

sequence numbers are included in Figure 5.26 to identify each ground motion, and the

number in parentheses following the record sequence number indicates which of the two

horizontal components is shown. Additional information about these records is provided

in Table A.2. Figure 5.26(a, b) presents the unscaled spectra for two records with (T1)

-0.8 along with the BA08 predictions. Though these records have similar values their

spectral shapes are very different, which is clearer in Figure 5.26(e) where the records are

scaled to Sa(T1) = 0.2 g. Differences in the width of the peak in the low period range and

the shape of the spectrum for T > T1 are notable, and this difference in spectral shape is

reflected in the difference of SaRatio values: 2.25 vs. 0.89. SaRatios ability to pick up

differences in spectral shape is further illustrated by Figure 5.26(c, d), which shows the

unscaled spectra for two records with (T1) 1.1 but different SaRatios (2.87 vs. 1.21).

As predicted by the difference in SaRatios, the spectral shapes of the records in Figure

5.26(c, d) are very different: one record has high spectral ordinates in the short period

range that generally decrease sharply with an increase in period while the other record

has a relatively flat spectrum for the entire period range shown in Figure 5.26(d). Figure

5.26(e) shows that the records in Figure 5.26(b, d) have similar spectral shapes despite

having very different (T1) values (-0.79 vs. 1.14, respectively). In fact, the spectral shape

of these two records is similar to the mean spectrum of the records with the lowest

collapse intensities shown in Figure 5.24(a) for T > T1. SaRatio captures the similarity in

the spectral shape of the records in Figure 5.26(b, d) as their values of SaRatio are

relatively close (0.89 and 1.21) compared to the values of SaRatio for the records in

Figure 5.26(a, c) (2.25 and 2.87, respectively). The spectral shape of the latter records

(those in Figure 5.26(a, c)) is very similar to the mean spectrum of the records with the

highest collapse intensities shown in Figure 5.24(c) for T > T1.

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 142

Figure 5.26: Pseudo-acceleration spectra for: (a, b) unscaled negative records; (c, d)

unscaled positive records; (e) records scaled to common value of Sa(T1).

Given that SaRatio was shown to capture differences in spectral shape very well, its

potential to predict collapse intensity is evaluated by computing the correlation between

SaRatio and collapse intensity in the log-log domain (i.e., the correlation between

ln(Sa(T1)col) and ln(SaRatio) is computed). The log-log domain was chosen instead of the

linear-linear domain because the correlation is slightly stronger in the log-log domain and

less sensitive to the period range used to compute SaRatio. Figure 5.27 presents contours

of the correlation coefficient as a function of the a and b values that define the period

range for SaRatio (Equation 5.13). The maximum correlation coefficient between

SaRatio and collapse intensity is = 0.83, which is achieved when periods between

0.2T1 and 3.3T1 are used to compute SaRatio (i.e., when a = 0.2 and b = 3.3). (Note that

this is not the only period range to produce a correlation coefficient of = 0.83.) It is

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 143

interesting to note that the correlation coefficient is generally much more sensitive to the

upper limit of the period range (the b value) than the lower limit of the period range (the

a value). Including periods up to 3T1 produces good correlation ( 0.80) for all a 1. It

is also interesting to note that the maximum correlation coefficient is achieved when

periods less than T1 are included, which is presumably because the spectrum reflects

pulses in the ground motion and pulses affect the structural response. Though the

spectrum at periods less than T1 may tend reflect pulses that are shorter in duration than

the fundamental period, these pulses can still affect the structural response. This is

particularly relevant for this structure because it is four stories and higher modes

contribute to its response, although it will be demonstrated in Chapter 7 that considering

spectral values at periods less than T1 can also improve response predictions for SDOF

systems (which, by definition, do not have higher modes). Optimum period ranges for

different structures are explored further in Chapter 7.

Figure 5.27: Contour plot of the correlation coefficient () between the natural logarithm

of collapse intensity and the natural logarithm of SaRatio for the case study as a function

of the period range used to compute SaRatio.

It turns out that SaRatio is similar to the Np parameter recently used by Bojorquez and

Iervolino (2011), which they define as the geometric mean of spectral acceleration values

between T1 and some period greater than T1 (they recommend 2T1), normalized by

Sa(T1). SaRatio, which was developed independently of Np, is essentially the inverse of

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 144

Np except that the period range for computing the geometric mean is not constrained to be

greater than T1.

A scatter plot of the natural logarithm of collapse intensity and the natural logarithm of

SaRatio for each ground motion used in the case study is shown in Figure 5.28, where

Saavg(T1[0.2, 3]) is used to compute SaRatio 3. A linear regression to the data is included

(with the equation shown in Figure 5.28), which shows a reasonable fit with R2 = 0.68.

This plot shows that SaRatio is a very good predictor of collapse intensity. For example,

all ground motions with SaRatio 1 (i.e., ln(SaRatio) 0) are in the lower half of the

collapse fragility curve (i.e., the collapse intensities are less than the median of 1.03 g, or

equivalently less than ln(1.03) = 0.03 as shown in Figure 5.28). However, not all motions

in the lower half of the collapse fragility curve have SaRatio 1 (i.e., ln(SaRatio) 0).

Figure 5.28: Natural log of collapse intensity versus natural log of SaRatio.

For comparison purposes a scatter plot of the natural logarithm of collapse intensity

versus calculated using the BA08 GMPE is shown for all 274 records in Figure 5.29. A

linear fit is also added to the data (with the equation shown in Figure 5.29), which has =

0.32 (R2 = 0.10) and demonstrates that there is much more scatter in the collapse intensity

3

Unless noted otherwise, the remainder of this chapter computes SaRatio using Saavg(T1[0.2, 3]).

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 145

versus relationship (Figure 5.29) than the collapse intensity versus SaRatio relationship

(Figure 5.28). A review of literature documenting the relationship between (the natural

logarithm of) collapse intensity and shows that the values on the order of 0.4 to 0.6

(R2 from 0.2 to 0.4) have been observed when using record sets without near-fault, pulse-

like motions (Haselton and Deierlein 2008; Liel and Deierlein 2008; Zareian and

Krawinkler 2009; Mousavi et al. 2011). The low correlation between collapse intensity

and observed in this case study may partly be explained due to the presence of near-

fault, pulse-like ground motions in the record set, as it has been noted before that does

not work well for these types of ground motions (Baker and Cornell 2008). However, as

discussed later, even structures subjected to record sets without near-fault, pulse-like

motions can have correlation coefficients smaller than the value observed in this case

study (Figure 5.29).

The presence of near-fault, pulse-like ground motions in the record set may also explain

why the trend between collapse intensity and , which is quantified by the slope of the

regression, is not as strong as other studies have found. The slope of the regression

between (the natural logarithm of) collapse intensity and is approximately 0.15 as

shown in Figure 5.29. Haselton et al. (2011) studied 65 reinforced concrete (RC) special

moment-resisting frames (MRFs) using a far-field ground motion set and found that the

average slope was 0.28. They also examined 20 RC ordinary MRFs, which are less

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 146

ductile than special MRFs, as well as 26 non-ductile RC MRFs and found that the

average slopes were 0.19 and 0.18, respectively, for these buildings, which are values

relatively close to the slope shown in Figure 5.29.

To verify that the correlation with collapse intensity is generally stronger for SaRatio

than for , case studies of over 650 generic moment-resisting frame (MRF), generic shear

wall, and reinforced concrete (RC) MRF structures are used. Details about these

structures, including the structural properties and modeling assumptions, and the ground

motions used are described in Appendix B, but briefly the generic MRF and generic shear

wall structures are those used by Zareian and Krawinkler (2009, Chapter 4) and the RC

MRFs are those used by Haselton and Deierlein (2007, Table 3-3). The generic MRF and

generic shear wall structures range from four to sixteen stories with periods between T1 =

0.2 s and 3.2 s while the RC MRF structures range from one to twenty stories with

periods between T1 = 0.42 s and 2.63 s. Using collapse data generously provided by these

authors, the correlation of collapse intensities with SaRatio and is calculated, and the

results are summarized in Table 5.1. The values are calculated using the BA08 GMPE.

The results demonstrate the correlation with collapse intensity is significantly greater for

SaRatio than for . As seen in Table 5.1 the correlation of the former is on the order of

= 0.8, on average, while the latter is on the order of = 0.5, on average. Less than 3% of

the structures demonstrated a stronger correlation between collapse intensity and than

between collapse intensity and SaRatio. Though not shown, the average slope of the

regression between collapse intensity and is on the order of 0.3 for these structures,

which is consistent with the slope of the RC special MRF structures studied by Haselton

et al. (2011). The average slope of the regression between collapse intensity and SaRatio

is on the order of 1.1 for the structures presented in Table 5.1.

No. of

Data set [ lnSa(T1)col, (1) ] [ lnSa(T1)col, lnSaRatio ]

structures

Mean Range Mean Range

Generic MRFs 396 0.54 0.20 0.75 0.80 0.33 0.95

Generic Shear Walls 252 0.52 0.27 0.65 0.82 0.56 0.96

RC MRFs 30 0.53 0.43 0.64 0.89 0.81 0.93

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 147

To help understand why some ground motions do not follow the expected relationship

between collapse intensity and (and therefore why and R2 are much lower than those

computed using SaRatio), the pseudo-acceleration spectra are plotted with the BA08

predictions in Figure 5.30 for twelve selected ground motions. The ground motions are

grouped into four types: (1) records with negative and high Sa(T1)col (Figure 5.30(a));

(2) records with neutral and high Sa(T1)col (Figure 5.30(b)); (3) records with neutral

and low Sa(T1)col (Figure 5.30(c)); and (4) records with positive and low Sa(T1)col

(Figure 5.30(d)). Each ground motion in Figure 5.30 has a symbol which corresponds to

the symbol shown in Figure 5.28 and Figure 5.29. The NGA record sequence numbers

are also included in Figure 5.30 to identify each ground motion, and the number in

parentheses following the record sequence number indicates which of the two horizontal

components is shown. Additional information about these records is provided in Table

A.2.

In most cases, the mismatch between the collapse intensity predicted from the regression

with and the actual collapse intensity for the ground motions shown in Figure 5.29 is

the result of failing to capture the spectral shape. A negative value tends to indicate

that the spectrum has a valley at T1 while a positive value tends to indicate that the

spectrum has a peak at T1 (Baker and Cornell 2005b). For records with the same value of

Sa(T1), those with negative values at T1 are expected to have higher spectral ordinates at

other periods and are therefore expected to be more damaging to nonlinear MDOFs

(Baker and Cornell 2005b). However, Figure 5.29 shows that many records do not follow

this trend. Figure 5.30(a) shows that the selected negative records do not have valleys at

T1 and instead have unusually low spectral ordinates with respect to the BA08 prediction

for almost all periods outside of the short period range. Conversely, the positive records

in Figure 5.30(d) do not have spectral peaks at T1 and instead have unusually high

spectral ordinates with respect to the BA08 prediction for almost all periods outside of

the short period range. Some of the neutral records in Figure 5.30(b) and Figure 5.30(c)

actually exhibit peaks and valleys, respectively, at T1 even though a neutral value does

not tend to indicate these features.

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 148

Figure 5.30: Unscaled pseudo-acceleration spectra with predicted spectral shape from

Boore and Atkinson 2008 (BA08) model for selected ground motions: (a) negative , high

Sa(T1)col; (b) neutral , high Sa(T1)col; (c) neutral , low Sa(T1)col; (d) positive , low

Sa(T1)col.

indirect measure of median shape, but in some instances (i.e., for some individual

records), such as those shown in Figure 5.30, is unable to infer correct information

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 149

about the spectral shape. SaRatio, on the other hand, measures the intensity at the

fundamental period relative to intensities at other periods for a given ground motion and

therefore is a direct measure of spectral shape. Comparison of Figure 5.28 and Figure

5.29 shows that for selected records (also shown in Figure 5.30) where was not a good

predictor of Sa(T1)col, SaRatio predicts Sa(T1)col reasonably well.

in Figure 5.31, which shows the natural logarithm of collapse intensity versus . The

parameter was recently proposed by Mousavi et al. (2011) and is a linear combination

of (Sa) and (PGV), where (Sa) is the discussed previously that measures the difference in

spectral acceleration and (PGV) measures the difference between the PGV of a record and

the mean PGV predicted by a GMPE. The parameter is also an indirect measure of

spectral shape. Mousavi et al. studied the relationship between collapse intensity and

for 84 SDOF systems with periods ranging from 0.1 s to 2.0 s and ductility values

between 2 and 12. The SDOFs had a tri-linear backbone curve with zero hardening slope

and a capping ductility equal to 90% of the ultimate ductility. Based on their results, they

formulated as = (Sa) 0.823(PGV) and found that the median value of the correlation

coefficient between and the natural logarithm of collapse intensity was = 0.65 (R2 =

0.42) for these systems. As Figure 5.31 shows, the correlation between and the collapse

intensity obtained for the case study discussed in Chapter 3 is = 0.59 (R2 = 0.35), which

is in good agreement with their findings. It should be noted that the BA08 prediction was

used to compute for the case study whereas Mousavi et al. (2011) used the Campbell

and Bozorgnia (2008) GMPE to compute and calibrate the coefficients of the

equation. Differences in the correlation coefficient due to use of different GMPEs are

expected to be small, however, based on the lack of significant changes to the correlation

coefficient between collapse intensity and when using different GMPEs as well as the

findings of Baker and Jayaram (2008) who observed that correlations between spectral

values at different periods were not sensitive to the choice of GMPE. In summary, the

collapse intensities of the case study showed significantly stronger correlation with than

with ( = 0.59 vs. 0.32, respectively); however, the collapse intensities were most

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 150

strongly correlated with SaRatio ( = 0.82), which, unlike the other two parameters, is a

direct measure of spectral shape.

The previous sections illustrated that the spectral shape of a record is related to how

damaging that record is to a particular structure. This finding is consistent with previous

studies such as those discussed in Section 5.2, which showed that the spectral shape of

the records used to analyze a structure can significantly influence the structural response

estimates and the resulting risk estimates (e.g., Baker and Cornell 2006a; Haselton et al.

2011). Given its potential to significantly affect structural response, the spectral shape of

records is an important factor to consider when assessing the collapse risk. To obtain a

good estimate of collapse risk, records with spectral shapes appropriate for the site and

hazard level of interest should be used in response history analyses. The challenge,

however, is determining what the appropriate spectral shapes are.

One method for selecting records with regard to spectral shape is to use a conditional

spectrum (CS) (Lin et al. 2013a; 2013b). A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA)

deaggregation, which describes the relative contributions of different magnitude,

distance, and values to the seismic hazard, is used to identify the main causal event that

contributes to the probability of equaling or exceeding a given value of Sa(T). The

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 151

properties of the main causal or target event (e.g., magnitude, distance, , fault type, etc.)

are used with a GMPE to generate a conditional mean spectrum (CMS), which uses

correlations between values at different periods to compute the expected spectral

values. Generation of the CMS is described in detail by Baker (2011). The CMS, which

describes the expected spectrum given the target event, and the variability of spectral

values at all periods combine to form the CS. The CS can account for multiple causal

events and multiple GMPEs as discussed by Lin et al. (2013a). Additional details about

the CS including information about publicly available software that generates the CS and

selects ground motions matching the distribution of the CS are provided by Lin et al.

(2013b).

The advantage of using the CS to select records is that it describes the full distribution of

the spectrum at all periods (i.e., it captures both the expected spectral shape and the

variability). Parameters such as SaRatio, , or quantify spectral shape by reducing it to a

single value, such as a ratio of spectral ordinates (SaRatio), a normalized difference

between the predicted and observed value of a single spectral ordinate (), or a linear

combination of the former with the normalized difference between the predicted and

observed value of PGV (). Though these parameters can be useful predictors of

structural response, some information about the spectral shape is lost when characterizing

the shape by a single value. Determining the appropriate values of these spectral shape

parameters can also be challenging as standard PSHA deaggregations do not include

information about SaRatio or . Though is a standard output of a PSHA deaggregation,

this parameter is typically significantly less correlated with structural response than either

SaRatio or .

The remainder of this section focuses on the spectral shape parameter SaRatio and

illustrates how it can affect the results of a collapse risk assessment. A method is

proposed for incorporating information about this parameter into collapse risk

assessment. This method is based on modifying the results of response history analyses to

consider SaRatio and is intended for use when ground motions are selected without

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 152

regard to spectral shape. This method can be useful when there are not enough records to

match the desired spectral shape.

As discussed in the previous section, the collapse intensity of a ground motion was found

to be strongly correlated with its SaRatio. The SaRatio values of the records used in

response history analysis can have a significant influence on a structures collapse

fragility. As an example consider how the collapse risk assessment results of the case

study structure change when three different record sets are used: (a) the original set of

274 records; (b) half of the original set (137 records) with the lowest values of SaRatio;

and (c) half of the original set with the highest values of SaRatio. Table 5.2 presents the

collapse risk assessment results obtained using these three ground motion sets in terms of

the median and dispersion of the collapse fragility curve, the mean annual frequency of

collapse (c), and the probability of collapse in 50 years (Pc,50), which is the design life of

many typical structures. Because records with lower SaRatios tend to have lower collapse

intensities (i.e., they tend to be more damaging), it is not surprising that the results from

the record set with the lowest SaRatios show that there is a higher risk of collapse relative

to the results from original set that considers all 274 records. What is significant,

however, is the amount by which the collapse risk increases: both c and Pc,50 increase by

approximately 55% (as a percentage of their original values) compared to the original set.

The change in collapse risk is even greater when comparing the set with the highest

SaRatios to the original set: both c and Pc,50 decrease by 65% (as a percentage of their

original values).

Table 5.2: Collapse risk assessment results using different record sets.

Mean Median

Records used SaRatio of Sa(T1)col ln c [10-4] Pc,50*

records [g]

(a) original set (all 247) 1.57 1.03 0.39 3.90 1.93%

(b) half with lowest SaRatio 1.13 0.80 0.26 6.08 2.99%

(c) half with highest SaRatio 2.00 1.33 0.32 1.38 0.69%

*Pc,50 = probability of collapse in 50 years

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 153

Reductions of 33% and 18% in the dispersion on the median collapse intensity are

observed for the sets with the lowest and highest SaRatios, respectively, compared to the

original set (Table 5.2). This small but noticeable reduction in dispersion is not surprising

because given that SaRatio is a good predictor of collapse intensity, records with greater

similarity in their SaRatios could be expected to have greater similarity in their collapse

intensities, hence less variability and dispersion.

The previous example highlighted the sensitivity of collapse risk assessment results to the

spectral shape of the records as measured by SaRatio. As previously mentioned the

spectral shape of the records should be appropriate for the site and hazard level of

interest, and one method of selecting records is to use the CS, which describes both the

expected spectral shape and the variability. When using records selected to match the CS,

no modification to structural response results is necessary because it is assumed that the

records represent the appropriate distribution of spectral shape. In other words it is

assumed that the structural response results obtained by this method already account for

the effects of spectral shape.

When structural responses are obtained using records selected without regard to spectral

shape, the SaRatios of the records used can significantly impact the collapse fragility

curve and the collapse risk estimate as demonstrated previously. Given that PSHA

deaggregations are not currently available for SaRatio as they are for magnitude,

distance, and , an approximate method for estimating an appropriate or target value of

SaRatio based on available data is proposed. This method is based on computing the

target value of SaRatio from the expected spectral shape based on a PSHA deaggregation.

The structural response results are then adjusted to what is expected when using records

with the target value of SaRatio.

The first step in estimating a target value of SaRatio is obtaining a PSHA deaggregation

for Sa(T1) at the hazard level of interest that shows the relative contribution of different

magnitude, distance, and (M-R-) bins to the seismic hazard at the site. Such

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 154

deaggregations are available from the USGS (USGS 2012b) or OpenSHA (Field et al.

2003; Field 2013), for example. An expected spectrum is calculated based on the PSHA

deaggregation. As discussed by Lin et al. (2013a; 2013b), the exact CMS, which

considers multiple causal events and GMPEs, can be constructed from the PSHA

deaggregation results, or it can be obtained from the USGS. An approximate CMS can

also be constructed using the mean M-R- values from the PSHA deaggregation.

Comparisons of the exact and approximate CMS for a few example sites are provided by

Lin et al. (2013a; 2013b). The target SaRatio is then estimated from the CMS: that is, the

SaRatio computed from the CMS is taken as the target SaRatio. Note that use of the CMS

is not required as one could compute the target SaRatio from another spectrum as deemed

appropriate.

Figure 5.32 provides an example of how the SaRatio values vary as a function of

magnitude (Mw) and Joyner-Boore distance (Rjb) for different values of (1). Similar to

previous sections, SaRatio is calculated using a period range from 0.2T1 to 3T1, where

T1 = 1.33 s from the case study. The BA08 GMPE is used considering an unspecified

fault type and Vs30 = 285 m/s, which is the average shear wave velocity in the top 30 m of

soil for the case study site. Correlation coefficients between spectral values at different

periods are computed using the equations developed by Baker and Jayaram (2008).

Figure 5.32: SaRatio, computed using a period range from 0.2T1 to 3T1, where

T1 = 1.33 s, as a function of magnitude and distance. SaRatio values are computed from

the CMS based on the BA08 GMPE for an unspecified fault type and Vs30 = 285 m/s.

Different values of (T1) are used to compute the CMS: (a) (T1) = 0; (b) (T1) = 1;

(c) (T1) = 2.

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 155

When (1) = 0 as illustrated in Figure 5.32(a), SaRatio decreases from approximately 1.7

to 1.3 as the magnitude increases from Mw = 6 to Mw = 8, respectively, and shows a much

smaller variation with distance, particularly for Mw 6.5. Because (1) = 0 the value of

SaRatio shown in Figure 5.32(a) is computed from the median spectrum predicted by the

BA08 GMPE for a given magnitude and distance. Figure 5.32(b) and Figure 5.32(c)

illustrate how the SaRatio values change when (1) = 1 and 2, respectively. Positive

values are chosen as PSHA deaggregations for most sites exhibit positive values at long

return periods of engineering interest (Burks and Baker 2012). The SaRatio values

generally increase as (1) increases because the spectrum becomes more peaked at T1.

For example SaRatio increases from approximately 1.5 to 2.0 for Mw = 7 as (1)

increases from 0 to 2. The regression between collapse intensity and SaRatio in Figure

5.28 implies that the expected value of Sa(T1)col increases by approximately 30% from

1.05 g to 1.36 g as SaRatio increases from 1.5 to 2.0. The values of SaRatio shown in

Figure 5.32 are provided as examples only and should not be generalized to other site

conditions and/or SaRatios computed using a different period range.

As mentioned before, the method previously described for estimating a target SaRatio is

only an approximation. The ideal way to obtain a target SaRatio would be from a

deaggregation that included information about the distribution of SaRatio similar to what

is currently done for where the expected values are reported for each magnitude and

distance bin as well as the overall mean and modal values. This would require

developing a GMPE that incorporates SaRatio and implementing it in standard PSHA

software that provides deaggregations. Given that such GMPEs and deaggregations are

not currently available the method previously described is a reasonable approach for

estimating a target SaRatio from available data. Future research on obtaining appropriate

target SaRatios is necessary.

The following sections describe approximate methods for considering SaRatio in collapse

risk assessment and are based on a knowing the target SaRatio at the hazard level of

interest. The objective of these methods is to obtain a collapse fragility curve that

considers SaRatio and can be used in subsequent collapse risk assessment calculations.

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 156

The most straightforward method is simply to use ground motions with SaRatios similar

to either the overall target SaRatio or to the target SaRatios from individual events where

the distribution of SaRatios is based on the events relative contribution to the seismic

hazard. This method is simple in that the results of the response history analyses (and

results of the collapse risk assessment based on those analyses) consider SaRatio and do

not need to be modified. A potential downside to this approach comes from simply using

the target value of SaRatio and ignoring the variability in SaRatios. The dispersion in

collapse intensity values may be smaller than what would be found using records with a

greater variety of SaRatios. This was demonstrated, for example, by the results

summarized in Table 5.2 as ground motion sets with a narrower range of SaRatios

produced smaller dispersions in the collapse intensity. The reduced dispersion can have a

significant impact on the resulting collapse risk estimate because, for a given median

collapse intensity, a smaller dispersion will decrease the collapse probabilities in the

lower half of the collapse fragility curve. Because this region of the collapse fragility

curve typically dominates the collapse risk as seen in Chapter 3, the resulting collapse

risk estimate will tend to be smaller (i.e., not conservative) than one found using ground

motions with a wider variety of SaRatios. Another potential downside to this approach is

ensuring the ground motions have SaRatios similar to the target SaRatio, which,

depending on the number of ground motions one desires, may be an additional constraint

on an already very constraining set of ground motion selection criteria.

The other two methods discussed here involve ignoring SaRatio when selecting ground

motions and instead focus the additional effort of considering SaRatio on modifying the

structural response results. These two methods operate under the assumption that the

distribution of SaRatios used to obtain the structural response results provides

information about the results expected at the target SaRatio. The first of these methods is

appropriate when the user wishes to perform a full incremental dynamic analysis (IDA)

(Vamvatsikos and Cornell 2002) in which the collapse intensity of each ground motion is

found by repeating response history analyses with increasing levels of ground motion

intensity until the minimum intensity that causes the structure to collapse is found (the

collapse intensity). The other method is appropriate for a stripe analysis (Jalayer

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 157

2003) in which ground motions are scaled to a limited number of intensity levels and the

probability of collapse at each intensity is estimated as the fraction of ground motions

causing collapse.

This method is an adaptation of a method proposed by Haselton et al. (2011) to account

for in collapse assessment. As shown in the case study results of Section 5.6, the

collapse intensities are significantly more correlated with SaRatio than with ( = 0.82

vs. = 0.32, respectively), so using SaRatio in place of is expected to provide a better

estimate of the collapse risk. As previously mentioned, this method requires conducting

IDAs to find the collapse intensity of each ground motion in the set, where the ground

motions are selected without regard to SaRatio. A linear regression is performed on the

set of collapse intensity and SaRatio data points in the log-log domain as shown in Figure

5.28 to yield an equation for the expected collapse intensity as a function of SaRatio. The

median collapse intensity considering SaRatio (the modified median collapse intensity)

is obtained from the linear regression using the target SaRatio as the value of SaRatio.

When performing a full IDA, selecting the hazard level at which to obtain the target

SaRatio is not obvious. The relative contribution of each seismic source to the overall

hazard is expected to change with the hazard level, and therefore the target SaRatio is

also expected to change. A reasonable choice would be to select the hazard level

corresponding to the intensity where the c deaggregation reaches its peak because this

hazard level represents the greatest contribution to c. This is the approach Haselton et al.

(2011) suggested for determining the hazard level for selecting the target . This intensity

could be estimated from the c deaggregation computed using the original (unmodified)

collapse fragility curve.

As an example of how to find the modified median collapse intensity, consider the case

study results. The linear regression of the collapse intensities and SaRatios in the log-log

domain shown was performed for the case study in Figure 5.28 and yielded the

relationship ln(Sa(T1)col) = -0.326 + 0.919ln(SaRatio). Suppose a PSHA deaggregation at

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 158

the intensity with the greatest contribution to c shows that the seismic hazard is

dominated by a magnitude 7 event located 10 km from the site, which is associated with

(T1) = 2.0. The SaRatio of the CMS constructed using these event parameters is equal to

2.0 as shown in Figure 5.32(c). Using the target SaRatio of 2.0 with the regression in

Figure 5.28, the modified median collapse intensity is estimated as ln(Sa(T1)col) = -0.326

+ 0.919ln(2.0) = 0.31, or Sa(T1)col = 1.36 g.

The standard deviation of the median collapse intensity is also affected when SaRatio is

considered. Equation 5.14 gives the reduced conditional standard deviation (ln) of the

modified median collapse intensity (Benjamin and Cornell 1970)

where res is the standard deviation of residuals from the linear regression between the

collapse intensities and SaRatios in the log-log domain, m is the slope of the regression,

and SaRatio is the standard deviation of the target SaRatio at the hazard level of interest.

The latter quantity presents a challenge as SaRatio is not currently a standard output of

probabilistic seismic hazard deaggregations (whereas standard deviations of magnitude,

distance and are sometimes reported). To overcome this problem it is recommended to

use ln as the standard deviation ln computed from the original (unmodified) collapse

intensities, which is expected to be a conservative approach. Haselton et al. (2011) also

recommend this simplification when using as they observed that the reduction in

dispersion was typically small (e.g., on the order of 10%). In general this magnitude of

reduction in dispersion is not expected to have a significant effect on the collapse risk

estimate. The effect of the reduction in dispersion is expected to be even smaller in this

case as the correlation of collapse intensity with SaRatio is larger and also because the

variability of SaRatio is expected to be smaller. The collapse fragility curve considering

SaRatio is then specified as the lognormal curve with the median equal to the modified

median collapse intensity and the dispersion ln that is computed from the original

(unmodified) collapse intensities.

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 159

An important factor to consider when determining the collapse fragility curve via a full

IDA is that the same ground motions are used at all intensity levels even though the

events that contribute to the seismic hazard, and thus the ground motion characteristics

(e.g., frequency content and duration), are expected to change with the intensity level. For

this reason and others, including the many approximations involved in this method and

the computational effort required to perform a full IDA, the limited stripe analysis

method described next is preferred over the full IDA method.

In a limited stripe analysis ground motions are scaled to a limited number of intensity

levels and the probability of collapse at each intensity is estimated as the fraction of

ground motions causing collapse. The collapse fragility curve is constructed by fitting a

fragility function (typically lognormal) to these estimated points. The pros and cons of

different fragility fitting methods are discussed by Baker (2013), and the method of

maximum likelihood is shown to be the appropriate method for fitting the results of a

limited stripe analysis. An advantage of limited stripe analysis is that the ground motion

set can change with intensity level to ensure the ground motion characteristics are

consistent with those expected at the intensity level of interest (Jalayer 2003).

The method for considering SaRatio in a limited stripe analysis assumes that the target

SaRatio at the intensity level of interest, Sa(T1) = x, is known. Instead of estimating the

probability of collapse as the fraction of records causing collapse at Sa(T1) = x, the

probability is estimated using a regression on the response history results that describes

the distribution of collapses (and non-collapses) at Sa(T1) = x as a function of

ln(SaRatio). This approach is modeled after a method proposed by Baker and Cornell

(2005b) for analysis using a vector-valued intensity measure and used previously by

Shome and Cornell (1999). The method for considering SaRatio is outlined as follows:

1. Given an intensity Sa(T1) = x, select records without regard to SaRatio and

perform response history analyses with records scaled to Sa(T1) = x.

2. Perform a logistic regression (Agresti 2002) on the collapse state versus

ln(SaRatio) results where the collapse state is 1 if the record caused the structure

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 160

collapse as a function of ln(SaRatio) for Sa(T1) = x. Details about logistic

regression are discussed later.

3. Estimate the probability of collapse at Sa(T1) = x as the probability of collapse

where SaRatio equals the target SaRatio using the logistic regression from step 2.

Logistic regression is commonly used to analyze binary data and is a standard feature of

many statistical software packages. The functional form of the logistic curve used by this

method is

P(C | Sa(T1 ) = x, ln (SaRatio )) =

1 + exp(c ln (SaRatio ) + d )

where C is the collapse state and c and d are coefficients determined by the regression.

Additional information about logistic regression can be found in (Agresti 2002).

hypothetical example using data from the case study. Suppose the target SaRatio is 2.0 at

an intensity of Sa(T1) = 0.7 g, which is an intensity in the peak of the c deaggregation

(i.e., it has a large contribution to c). A logistic regression is fit to the collapse state at an

intensity of Sa(T1) = 0.7 g versus ln(SaRatio) as shown in Figure 5.33. The logistic

regression in Figure 5.33 shows that at the target SaRatio of 2.0 (or, equivalently,

ln(SaRatio) 0.69), the probability of collapse is 0.4%. Therefore, the probability of

collapse at Sa(T1) = 0.7 g considering SaRatio would be estimated as 0.4%. If one had

ignored the effect of SaRatio and estimated the probability of collapse as the fraction of

records causing collapse, a probability of 17.9% would have been found as 49 of the 274

records caused collapse at this intensity. These estimates of the probability of collapse at

Sa(T1) = 0.7 g differ by a factor of more than 40, which can significantly affect the

calculated collapse risk, especially since this intensity was among the most significant

contributors to c.

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 161

Figure 5.33: Logistic regression on collapse state and ln(SaRatio) for case study data at

Sa(T1) = 0.7 g.

that the target SaRatio should be within the range of SaRatios analyzed in order to have a

meaningful regression. Additionally, the analysis results must include collapses and non-

collapses for the regression to be meaningful. To limit the possibility of a few data points

driving the regression, the recommendations of Baker and Cornell (2005b) are adopted: if

two or fewer collapses (or non-collapses) are observed, logistic regression should not be

used and the probability of collapse should be estimated as the fraction of records causing

collapse. The logistic regression may not be meaningful if the SaRatios of collapse and

non-collapse records do not overlap, which is more likely to occur when using a small

number of records. This is particularly significant when the target SaRatio falls between

the SaRatios of the collapse and non-collapse records.

rather than as the fraction of records causing collapse is that the estimated probability is

not restricted to be a multiple of 1/N, where N is the number of records analyzed. Because

collapse is a binary state (at least in this context) the fraction of records causing collapse

must be i/N, where i is an integer between 0 and N. If N is large, being restricted to

estimating probabilities of i/N is not a significant issue; however, if N is small this could

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 162

have important consequences, particularly when the probabilities of collapse are small

and the intensities have significant contributions to c 4. For example, consider a case

where the true probability of collapse at a given intensity is 7.5%, where true means

the probability of collapse computed with an infinitely large number of appropriate

records. When using 20 records, the closest to the true probability one can estimate is

either 5% or 10% (by having either one or two collapses, respectively, out of the 20

records). The contribution to c (the product of the probability of collapse and the slope of

the hazard curve) at this intensity would be, at best, either 1/3 smaller or 1/3 larger,

respectively, than the true contribution. If this intensity has a significant contribution to

c, which is common for intensities in the lower half of the fragility curve, this can

significantly affect the calculated c. This would also affect the contributions of

neighboring intensities whose probabilities of collapse are determined when a collapse

fragility curve is fit to the estimated data points. As the number of points estimated on the

collapse fragility curve is typically substantially much less in a limited stripe analysis

than a full IDA, this could affect a wide range of intensities. When estimating the

probability of collapse based on a logistic regression between the collapse state and

ln(SaRatio), the probability can take any value between zero and one because the logistic

regression is a continuous function.

The method described for considering SaRatio in a limited stripe analysis is applicable

for any type of analysis in which the probability of collapse at a given intensity is

estimated from the results of response history analyses. These include analyses in which

the probability of collapse is estimated at intensities spaced every 0.1 g, for example, or

at intensities corresponding to five different hazard levels. This method is also applicable

when using the approach described in Chapter 4 for estimating the collapse fragility

curve at two intensity levels. This method could even be used with the results of the full

IDA where instead of fitting a fragility curve to the collapse intensities, this method is

4

Note that plotting positions besides i/N can be used to estimate the probability of collapse. For example,

the Blom plotting position (Blom, G. (1958). Statistical estimates and transformed beta variables, John

Willey & Sons, New York.) estimates the probability of collapse as (i-0.375) / (N+0.25). However, the

probability of collapse estimates are still limited to discrete increments (in this case increments of

0.625/(N+0.25) instead of 1/N).

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 163

used to estimate the probabilities at many discrete intensities (e.g., intensities spaced

every 0.1 g) and the fragility curve is fit to the estimated probabilities.

It is important to remember that both the full IDA and limited stripe analysis methods

discussed here for considering spectral shape in collapse risk assessment require reducing

the spectral shape to a single parameter, in this case SaRatio. As SaRatio is the ratio

between Sa(T1) and the (geometric) mean spectral value over a given period range, it

does not provide information about the relative frequency content of the record at periods

other than T1, so some information about the spectral shape is lost. Furthermore, these

methods focus on adjusting collapse estimates based on a target (expected) value of

SaRatio, which must be estimated as PSHA deaggregations do not provide information

about SaRatio (in terms of either the expected values or the variability). A more direct

way to incorporate spectral shape would be to use records with appropriate spectral

shapes in terms of expected values and variability, such as selecting records to match a

CS based on a PSHA deaggregation. The full IDA and limited stripe analysis methods are

intended for situations when the previously described direct method cannot be used due

to a lack of appropriate records or to adjust results obtained without considering spectral

shape.

5.8 Summary

The relationship between spectral shape and structural response was examined. Because

damage often occurs as a result of large inelastic displacement excursions, the equation of

motion was examined to determine what combinations of structural characteristics and

time domain features of the ground motion lead to large displacement excursions. It was

found that when there is significant area under the ground acceleration history (i.e.,

significant incremental velocity) while a system moves in a direction opposite the ground

acceleration (i.e., the systems velocity and the ground acceleration have opposite signs),

a large displacement excursion is likely to occur, especially if the system yields during

this time. The reason for large displacements occurring when the systems velocity and

ground acceleration have opposite signs is that the momentum the acceleration pulse

imparts to the system is in the opposite direction of the ground acceleration. For example,

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 164

displacement direction. If the system is moving in the negative displacement direction

(i.e., it has a negative velocity) the momentum from the pulse will add to the movement

of the system and create a larger displacement.

Next, the response to a single half-sine pulse was examined as a ground acceleration

history can be thought of as a series of individual pulses. In the context of this chapter,

the term pulse refers to a segment of the ground acceleration history between zero

crossings. The displacement response spectrum for systems starting from rest subjected to

a half-sine pulse was examined to show that the shape of the spectrum was related to the

time at which individual systems reached their peak displacement (e.g., whether the peak

displacement was reached at the first local maximum/minimum or at subsequent local

maxima/minima). Then the displacement spectrum was generalized for a half-sine pulse

of arbitrary duration and area, and it was noted that it is possible to deduce properties of

the pulse (e.g., the duration td) given only the displacement spectrum. For example, the

spectral ordinates increase sharply for 1 < T/td < 3 (where T is the period of the system)

so from the shape of the displacement spectrum one can infer the duration of pulse that

created that shape. Next the influence of the state of the system (its initial displacement

and velocity conditions) when the pulse starts was examined. It was seen that the initial

conditions can significantly affect the systems response, particularly when td << T, and

that the largest responses typically occur under the initial conditions that maximize the

amount of time the system moves in the direction opposite the ground acceleration (or,

equivalently, in the same direction that the acceleration imparts momentum). The latter

observation is consistent with the findings from examining the equation of motion to

determine what combinations of structural characteristics and time domain features of the

ground motion lead to large displacement excursions.

The peak displacement response to a ground motion was examined next to understand

how the spectral shape arises. It was seen that a smooth spectral region occurs when an

individual segment of the ground acceleration history controls the peak response of a

systems within a given period range. It was also seen that sharp turns or abrupt changes

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 165

in the shape of the displacement spectrum, such as V-shaped valleys, occur when there

is a change in the segment of acceleration history (i.e. in the critical pulse) that produces

the peak response. Response histories were examined for individual systems in a smooth,

peaked region of the displacement spectrum. Given that the peak response of these

systems was controlled by the same segment of the acceleration history, it was seen that

the reason why one system was at the top of the peak while another system was on the toe

of the peak had to do with the initial conditions of the systems at the start of the

controlling ground motion segment. Differences between elastic and inelastic spectral

shape were also discussed, and it was shown that because prior yielding changes the

inelastic systems initial conditions (relative to the elastic system) at the start of a given

ground motion segment, the peak responses of elastic and inelastic systems can be quite

different from each other. This was illustrated for a system at the top of a peak in the

elastic displacement spectrum where it was seen that the change in initial conditions of

the inelastic system led to a significantly reduced response compared to the elastic

system.

The spectral shape of damaging records (those with low collapse intensities, Sa(T1)col)

was also examined. Results from the case study of Chapter 3 were used to show that the

spectral shape of damaging records is typically distinct from the shape of more benign

records, and that damaging records typically exhibit sharply increasing spectral

displacements for T > T1. Selected damaging records were examined, and it was seen that

individual long duration pulses or segments of the ground acceleration with significant

incremental velocity could form the basis for the spectral shape of the entire record and

even replicate the spectrum of the entire record over large period ranges. This means that

the spectrum can be viewed as a reflection of the duration and intensity of a few critical

individual pulses/segments contained in the ground motion as well as the state of the

systems (the initial conditions) when those pulses/segments act on the various SDOF

systems. This is analogous to the spectrum of the half-sine pulse that was a reflection of

the area and duration of the pulse that created it. The observation about the typical

spectral shape of damaging records was attributed to the fact that these motions contained

pulses/segments with significant intensities and significant durations relative to T1 and

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 166

that these damaging pulses/segments manifest themselves in the spectral domain with

sharply increasing displacement ordinates for T > T1. Displacement histories of the case

study structure were examined for selected damaging records, and it was seen that the

largest inelastic displacement excursions typically occurred when there were significant

incremental velocities imparting momentum in the same direction the structure was

moving. This is consistent with previous observations about what produces large

displacement excursions based on (a) examining the terms in the equation of motion and

(b) studying how the initial conditions of a system affect its response to a pulse.

Measures of spectral shape were discussed, and three spectral shape measures were

evaluated for their ability to predict the collapse intensity of a record. These measures

included a direct measure of spectral shape called SaRatio, which is defined as the ratio

of Sa(T1) to the geometric mean value of pseudo-acceleration spectral values over a

period range, and two indirect measures of spectral shape, and , that measure the

difference between the spectral ordinate or peak ground velocity of the ground motion

and the mean prediction from a ground motion prediction equations at a given period. It

was seen that for the case study, the collapse intensity showed stronger correlation with

SaRatio than with or . It was theorized that SaRatio performed better because it is a

direct measure of spectral shape rather than an indirect measure of or a proxy to spectral

shape (i.e., SaRatio is computed directly from the spectral values of the records whereas

the other measures are computed with respect to the median of a ground motion

prediction equation).

It was shown that the results of response history analyses can be very sensitive to the

spectral shape of the records used, which is consistent with the findings of other

researchers. To obtain a good estimate of collapse risk, records with spectral shapes

appropriate for the site and hazard level of interest should be used in response history

analyses. Selecting records to match a conditional spectrum (CS) based on PSHA

deaggregations is one approach and is advantageous because it captures both the expected

spectrum and the variability of the spectrum (Lin et al. 2013b). Two approximate

methods for adjusting collapse results obtained using records selected without

Chapter 5: Spectral Shape and Structural Response 167

consideration of spectral shape were presented that are based on using a target value of

SaRatio. One method is appropriate for use with the results from incremental dynamic

analyses in which the collapse intensity of each record is known, and the other method is

appropriate when estimating the probability of collapse conditioned on the ground motion

intensity (where knowing the collapse intensity of each record is not required). Both

methods assume that the distribution of SaRatios used to obtain the analysis results

provides information about the results expected at the target SaRatio. Because seismic

hazard deaggregations do not currently provide information about SaRatio, a method for

estimating a target value of SaRatio was discussed in which the SaRatio is computed

from the spectrum of an event dominating the hazard deaggregation or a mean causal

event. It is stressed that this method is merely an attempt to obtain an estimate and that

more research about obtaining target SaRatios is necessary.

Chapter 6

6.1 Overview

This chapter investigates the performance of different ground motion intensity measures

(IMs) in estimating the nonlinear response and particularly the collapse risk of structures.

The performance of various IMs is evaluated using the following criteria: efficiency,

sufficiency, the availability or ease of developing probabilistic seismic hazard

information in terms of the IM, and the robustness of collapse risk estimates produced by

the IM.

A detailed study on the use of pseudo-spectral acceleration averaged over a period range

(Saavg) as a ground motion IM is conducted in this chapter. A case study demonstrates

that Saavg is a better IM for predicting the collapse intensity of a structure compared to

Sa(T1), the pseudo-spectral acceleration at the first-mode period of the structure. Reasons

for this observation are discussed. Note that the 5%-damped spectral ordinates are used

throughout this work unless noted otherwise.

Nearly 700 moment-resisting frame and shear wall structures are used to conduct a

comprehensive evaluation of the sufficiency of Saavg with respect to magnitude, distance,

and spectral shape parameters. Comparisons are made between Saavg and Sa(T1).

Obtaining a seismic hazard curve in terms of Saavg is also discussed.

Finally, the performance of different IMs, specifically Sa(T1), Saavg, and peak ground

velocity (PGV), is evaluated with respect to the collapse risk predictions for a case study.

Particular attention is given to the effects of sufficiency and efficiency on the collapse

risk estimates and the variability of the collapse risk estimates and robustness of the

collapse estimation procedure when different ground motion sets are used to assess the

structural response.

168

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 169

An IM quantifies the intensity of the ground motion and can depend solely on the ground

motion properties (e.g., PGV) or on both the ground motion and structural properties

(e.g., Sa(T1)). Desirable properties of an IM include sufficiency, efficiency, and the

availability of probabilistic seismic hazard information or ease of developing/computing

the seismic hazard associated with the IM. The remainder of this section explains these

properties and provides a literature review of previous studies using IMs to predict

collapse or nonlinear structural response. Particular emphasis is given to IMs related to

spectral values or spectral shape.

As described in Section 2.3, the IM-based approach to collapse risk assessment involves

integrating the collapse fragility curve, which describes the probability of collapse

conditioned on ground motion intensity level, with respect to the seismic hazard curve,

which describes the mean annual frequency of exceeding different ground motion

intensity levels. An implicit assumption in this approach is that structural collapse

depends solely on the intensity level of the ground motion as measured by the IM and not

on other ground motion parameters not captured by the IM. This property is called

sufficiency and means that if, for example, Sa(T1) is used as the IM, the response of the

structure or probability of collapse at a given intensity level is not influenced by

properties such as the magnitude, distance, or duration of the event that produced the

ground motion. Using a sufficient IM is advantageous because it means that ground

motions from a variety of events can be used to assess the response of the structure at a

given intensity level. An issue related to the sufficiency of the IM is whether the

structural response estimates at a given intensity level are the same when using

unscaled/as-recorded ground motions versus ground motions that are scaled to the given

intensity level. The sufficiency of specific IMs is discussed in the literature review.

to predict the structural response. For example, it is desirable that the peak structural

response exhibits small levels of variability between ground motions with the same

intensity level (as measured by the IM). The efficiency of the IM is also related to the

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 170

number of ground motions required to estimate the structural response with a given level

of confidence, with more efficient IMs requiring fewer ground motions than less efficient

IMs. For an efficient IM, there is a strong correlation between the ground motion

intensity (as measured by the IM) and the peak structural response and a small variability

of structural response for a given intensity level. The efficiency of different IMs is

discussed in the literature review.

The ability to compute hazard information related to the IM is essential when performing

any type of risk-based structural response assessment using the IM approach.

Specifically, one must be able to develop a ground motion prediction equation (GMPE)

for the IM, that is, one must be able to estimate the probability of exceeding a given

intensity level (as measured by the IM) conditioned on the occurrence of a given seismic

event (e.g., given values of M and R), in order to compute the seismic hazard associated

with the IM. In practice, the availability of and/or the ease of developing probabilistic

seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) tools related to the IM is important (although it should

be noted that some PSHA tools such as OpenSHA (Field et al. 2003; Field 2013) and

CRISIS (Ordaz et al. 2013) allow user-defined GMPEs), as IMs with seismic hazards that

are impractical to compute are unlikely to be very useful, even if the IM has other

desirable properties (e.g., efficiency and sufficiency).

A number of previous studies have examined the ability of given IMs to predict structural

response, including those by Riddell (2007), who studied the correlation of the structural

displacement response, the input energy, and the hysteretic energy of SDOF systems with

23 different IMs, and by Bradley et al. (2010a), who compared the efficiency, sufficiency

and hazard predictability of five different IMs in estimating the drift- and acceleration-

based responses of a 10-story moment-resisting frame (MRF) structure. The following

literature review of previous studies using IMs to predict collapse or nonlinear structural

response is roughly organized according to the type of IM used. Primary focus is given to

IMs related to spectral ordinates and to studies focused on displacement-based response.

It should be noted that many researchers such as Aslani and Miranda (2005a, Chapter 3),

Taghavi and Miranda (2006, Chapter 9), and more recently Bradley et al. (2010a) have

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 171

noted that IMs that are efficient predictors of displacement-based responses are often not

efficient predictors of acceleration-based responses and vice-versa.

The first IM considered is Sa(T1). Though peak ground acceleration (PGA) was

commonly used to characterize the ground motion intensity many years ago, researchers

such as Shome and Cornell (1999) have demonstrated that Sa(T1) is more efficient than

PGA. Sa(T1) is currently widely used to characterize the response of buildings; however,

Sa(T1) may not be an entirely sufficient IM. For example, Tothong and Cornell (2006)

observed a small dependence between the peak displacement of inelastic single-degree-

of-freedom (SDOF) systems and earthquake magnitude (Mw) when records were scaled to

the same value of Sa(T1); however, many other studies have concluded that Sa(T1) is

sufficient with respect to magnitude and distance (R) for predicting maximum interstory

drift ratios (IDRs) (e.g., Shome et al. 1998; Bradley et al. 2010a). Other studies have

shown that Sa(T1) is not sufficient with respect to a spectral shape parameter called 1

(e.g., Baker and Cornell 2006a; Haselton et al. 2011), meaning that the intensity level at

which the ground motion causes the structure to collapse depends on the value of . In

such cases where the IM is not sufficient with respect to a ground motion parameter,

some modification needs to be made so that the risk assessment results are valid.

Modifications including using a vector IM (e.g., Sa(T1) and ) and careful record

selection are discussed by Baker and Cornell (2005a). Some researchers have also found

that Sa(T1) is not very efficient or sufficient for structures in which higher modes

contribute significantly to the response, such as in tall buildings, and/or for near-fault

ground motions, as the period of ground motion pulses can significantly affect the

response (e.g., Shome and Cornell 1999; Alavi and Krawinkler 2001; Baker and Cornell

2008).

Another issue related to the sufficiency of the IM is whether the structural response

estimates at a given intensity level are the same when using unscaled/as-recorded ground

1

The spectral shape parameter measures the number of standard deviations between the spectral ordinate

at a given period of a particular ground motion and the geometric mean value predicted by a ground motion

prediction equation. More information about this parameter is provided, e.g., by Baker and Cornell (2006a).

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 172

motions versus ground motions that are scaled to the given intensity level. Luco and

Bazzurro (2007) examined this particular issue with respect to the median drift estimates

obtained for nonlinear SDOF systems and one multiple-degree-of-freedom (MDOF)

system. Their objective was to determine whether, for a given narrow magnitude and

distance (Mw-R) bin and a given level of Sa(T1), using records scaled to the target level of

Sa(T1) produced a bias in the median drift response compared to using unscaled records

with the target magnitude, distance, and unscaled Sa(T1) values. They sorted records into

six Mw-R bins and compared the results obtained from a given target Mw-R bin to the

results obtained using records from a different Mw-R bin that were scaled to match the

Sa(T1) value of the target bin. The authors found that scaled records could introduce

significant bias in the drift response, which they attributed to differences in the median

elastic spectral shape of the different bins. They noted that the bias could be significantly

reduced by selecting records to match the target spectral shape. They also looked at

scaling records within a given bin and found that, on average, records scaled up to a

given intensity level produced larger responses than records that did not need to be scaled

(i.e., that were recorded with the given intensity level).

Baker (2007a) demonstrated that for records scaled to the same Sa(T1) value, the scale

factor did not influence the maximum IDR of a seven-story RC MRF structure (i.e., there

was no bias) when the records were selected based on spectral shape (either via the

parameter or by matching a mean spectral shape). He found that a bias due to scale factor

did exist, however, when records were selected arbitrarily or from a given Mw-R bin.

Bradley et al. (2010a) also observed no bias due to scale factor in the maximum IDR

results of a 10-story RC MRF structure when using records scaled to a common Sa(T1)

value that were selected based on spectral shape.

A number of researchers have been able to improve the efficiency and/or sufficiency of

Sa(T1) by including a secondary parameter that provides information about the spectral

values at periods other than T1. Studies considering the benefit of including information

about spectral values at other periods include those by Shome and Cornell (1999),

Mehanny and Deierlein (2000), and Cordova et al. (2000). Shome and Cornell (1999,

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 173

Chapter 4) found that including information about the value of Sa(T2), where T2 is the

second-mode period of the structure of interest, for a given value of Sa(T1) decreased the

dispersion of displacement-based responses by approximately 20% for a 20-story

structure. They also found that the relationship between the maximum IDR and the

ground motion intensity was stronger when using a weighted spectral acceleration Sa*

versus Sa(T1), where Sa* is computed as 0.8Sa(T1) + 0.2Sa(T2). Similar results were

found when using an IM that combined the spectral accelerations at the first-, second-,

and third-mode periods of the structure. Mehanny and Deierlein (2000, Chapters 6 and 7)

observed that differences in the ratio of Sa(T2) to Sa(T1) between ground motions could

explain the differences in the structural response. Mehanny and Deierlein also found that

including information about RSa, the ratio of spectral acceleration at an elongated period

to Sa(T1), could improve correlation between the structural response and input ground

motion compared to considering Sa(T1) alone. Cordova et al. (2000) also examined the

use of RSa and, in particular, proposed an intensity measure called S*, which is the product

of Sa(T1) and RSa, where the latter parameter is raised to some power. This power was

recommended to be 0.5, and the elongated period was recommended to be taken as 2T1.

Using these recommendations, S* is equivalent to the geometric mean of the spectral

acceleration ordinates at T1 and 2T1. Using a set of four structures, Cordova et al. found

that S* could significantly reduce the dispersion in maximum IDRs compared to the

dispersion computed using Sa(T1), with reductions of approximately 40% in some cases,

for both ordinary and near-fault ground motion sets.

Vamvatsikos and Cornell (2005b) also studied spectral-based IMs to predict the

maximum IDRs as well as collapse using three structures: a 5-story, a 9-story, and a 20-

story structure that used either MRF or braced frame lateral systems. They first

considered Sa(T), where the period is not necessarily equal to T1, and found that while

some periods could significantly decrease the dispersion in structural response compared

to using T1, the values of these periods were generally difficult to predict a priori. A

notable exception was for structures where the response was dominated by the first mode,

in which case using a period greater than T1 (e.g., 2T1) generally reduced the dispersion

in collapse intensities. Haselton and Baker (2006) reached a similar conclusion while

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 174

that a period of 2T1 be used (i.e., using Sa(2T1) as the IM).

Vamvatsikos and Cornell (2005b) also considered using an IM similar to S*, except that

the periods used were not restricted to T1 and an elongated period. Stated somewhat

differently but equivalently in a power-law form, the IM is the product between two

spectral ordinates, where each ordinate is raised to a power. After some optimization,

they essentially recommend that the IM be computed as the geometric mean of spectral

acceleration ordinates at two periods. For the 5-story building, they found that using

periods near T1 and 1.5T1 for the IM resulted in up to a 50% decrease in dispersion of

collapse intensities compared to that computed using Sa(T1). For the 9-story building, the

authors found that the dispersion in collapse intensities is reduced by approximately 25%

using periods near T1 and T2, and for the 20-story building using periods of

approximately 1.4T1 and a period midway between T2 and T3 decreased the dispersion in

collapse intensities by up to approximately 40% compared to the dispersion computed

using Sa(T1). The authors also considered computing the IM as the geometric mean of

spectral acceleration values at three periods and found that while the reduction in

dispersion was marginal compared to that computed using two periods, the resulting

dispersion was much less sensitive to the particular periods used to compute the IM.

Recognizing that including more periods could produce a more robust IM and minimize

the sensitivity of the dispersion to the particular periods used to compute the IM,

Vamvatsikos and Cornell also considered using many spectral ordinates to compute the

IM. Their IM was similar to the geometric mean value of the spectral acceleration over a

period range, but different weights were applied to the spectral ordinates at different

periods. They found that this IM could reduce the dispersion of collapse intensities (as

well as the dispersion of intensities associated with a given level of maximum IDR

response) by up to 50% compared to the dispersion computed using Sa(T1). They found

that the IM performed best when the weights assigned to spectral ordinates increased

with period.

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 175

A number of researchers have also been able to improve the efficiency and/or sufficiency

of Sa(T1) by including a secondary parameter that indirectly or directly measures the

spectral shape. These researchers include Baker and Cornell (2005b; 2006a), Haselton et

al. (2011), Mousavi et al. (2011), and Bojrquez and Iervolino (2011). Baker and Cornell

(2005b; 2006a) demonstrated that Sa(T1) is not sufficient with respect to the parameter 1,

a proxy to spectral shape that describes the number of logarithmic standard deviations a

spectral ordinate of a given ground motion is from the mean ordinate predicted by a

GMPE at a given period. Note that herein the discussions of refer to the value computed

using the fundamental period of the structure under consideration. Using ordinary (i.e.,

not near-fault, pulse-like) ground motions Baker and Cornell showed that the maximum

IDRs conditioned on a given value of Sa(T1) were correlated with the values of the

ground motions and that risk-based results such as the drift hazard or collapse hazard

obtained using Sa(T1) could be significantly biased unless the records were selected in

accordance with the expected spectral shape or a target value based on a PSHA

deaggregation. Haselton et al. (2011) developed a method for adjusting the collapse

fragility curve when it was computed using records whose values were not consistent

with the target value based on a PSHA deaggregation. Using a case study, they

demonstrated that this method approximated the collapse fragility curve computed using

records whose values were consistent with a PSHA deaggregation. They showed that

not accounting for the effect of could lead to very conservative collapse risk estimates,

as once the effects of were included using their proposed method the median collapse

intensity increased by 60% and the mean annual frequency of collapse decreased by a

factor of 23 for their case study.

Mousavi et al. (2011) used a proxy to spectral shape called , which is a linear

combination of (based on spectral acceleration) and the based on PGV ((PGV)). They

found that is more effective than (based on spectral acceleration) at predicting the

collapse intensity of structures. Mousavi et al. studied the relationship between collapse

intensity and for 84 SDOF systems with periods ranging from 0.1 s to 2.0 s and

ductility values between 2 and 12. The SDOFs had a tri-linear backbone curve with zero

hardening slope and a capping ductility equal to 90% of the ultimate ductility. Based on

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 176

their results, they computed the parameter as = 0.823(PGV) and found that the

median value of the correlation coefficient between the natural logarithm of collapse

intensity and was approximately = 0.64 for these systems, nearly a 50% increase in

the median correlation coefficient computed using (based on spectral acceleration).

Bojrquez and Iervolino (2011) used a direct spectral shape measure called Np, which is

the ratio of Saavg to Sa(T1), where Saavg is the geometric mean value of spectral

acceleration over a period range. They recommended computing Saavg using periods

between T1 and 2T1. The parameter Np can be viewed as proportional to the average

slope of the spectrum at periods greater than T1. Using case studies of SDOF and MDOF

systems under ordinary, pulse-like, and narrow-band ground motion sets, the authors

found that using a vector IM consisting of Sa(T1) and Np offered significantly improved

predictions of structural response (including maximum IDR, normalized hysteretic

energy demands, and a cumulative damage index) compared to Sa(T1) alone, especially

for the pulse-like ground motions. At intensity levels associated with significant

nonlinearity in the system, this vector IM could reduce the dispersion of maximum IDR

conditioned on intensity by up to 70% compared to using Sa(T1). Bojrquez and Iervolino

also defined a scalar IM called INp, which is the product of Sa(T1) and Np, where Np is

raised to some power, which they recommend as 0.4 based on optimization analyses over

all levels of ground motion intensity. They demonstrated that INp predicted maximum

IDR response significantly better than Sa(T1).

Other researchers including Kennedy et al. (1984), Bianchini (2008), Bianchini et al.

(2009), Kadas et al. (2011), Tsantaki et al. (2012), and Tsantaki and Adam (2013) have

also considered using an average spectral ordinate as an IM. Kennedy et al. (1984)

studied the response of SDOF systems and noted that the level of inelastic structural

response could be better predicted using an average spectral value over periods larger

than the fundamental period of the structure compared to using the spectral ordinate at a

single, effective frequency. They noted that the median predictions were only slightly

better when using the average ordinate; however, they did find a reduction in the

variability of the results, which they attributed to the smoothing effect of averaging

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 177

compared to using a single ordinate that could be sensitive to local peaks and valleys in

the spectrum. Kadas et al. (2011) considered the integral of spectral acceleration over a

period range between an initial effective period and a lengthened period as an IM to be

used for ground motion selection. For a set of seven short- and medium-period frame

structures, they found that the ground motion intensity measured by this IM was well-

correlated with the maximum IDRs (a range of IDRs from approximately 0.01 to 0.02

radians was considered), with an average correlation coefficient of = 0.85 for the

structures considered. Bianchini (2008) and Bianchini et al. (2009) studied the

displacement response of SDOF and MDOF systems with ductility levels () ranging

from = 1 to 6 using Saavg as the IM. The authors found that the minimum dispersion in

the results was produced using an upper limit on the period range of approximately 2T1

for low ductility levels and approximately 3T1 for high ductility levels ( 4). For the

lower limit of the period range, they recommended using T1 for SDOF systems and

approximately 0.25T1 for MDOF systems with significant contributions from higher

modes. Tsantaki et al. (2012) studied the collapse of non-degrading bilinear SDOF

systems vulnerable to P- effects. The periods of the SDOFs ranged from T1 = 0.1 s to

5.0 s, and various hysteretic behaviors and effective post-yield stiffness values were

considered. They found that Saavg computed between T1 and an elongated period reduced

the dispersion in collapse intensities between 25% and 45% compared to the dispersion

found using Sa(T1). The recommended upper limit of the period range was between

1.2T1 and 2.1T1 and varied as a function of the period of SDOF. The authors found that

Saavg did not reduce the dispersion compared to Sa(T1) for systems with T1 = 0.1 s. In a

related study using the same SDOFs but focusing on systems with bilinear hysteretic

behavior, Tsantaki and Adam (2013) recommended using an upper limit of 1.6T1 for

systems with T1 0.15 s. They found that the optimum upper limit of the period range

was not very sensitive to the damping ratio or the effective post-elastic stiffness.

The inelastic spectral displacement at the fundamental period of the structure (Sdi(T1)),

has also been considered as an IM. Aslani and Miranda (2005a, Chapter 3) examined the

efficiency of four different IMs, including Sd(T1), Sdi(T1), PGA normalized by 42/T12,

and S*. It should be noted that Sd(T1) is the elastic spectral displacement and is directly

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 178

proportional to Sa(T1), such that the dispersion of structural responses measured by either

IM is identical. The inelastic spectral displacement was calculated using an elastic-

perfectly-plastic SDOF system with a period equal to the fundamental period of the

structure under consideration. The yield displacement of the SDOF was determined based

on a static pushover analysis of the MDOF structure. They found that Sdi(T1) was the

most efficient IM for predicting both the maximum IDR at different stories of a seven-

story building and the overall maximum IDR in the structure for a wide range of intensity

levels, although at higher levels of intensity the performance of S* was comparable.

Ruiz-Garca and Miranda (2005, Chapter 7) also found that Sdi(T1) was more efficient

than Sd(T1) when computing the maximum and residual IDRs, even for long-period

structures.

Luco and Cornell (2007) investigated a series of IMs based on Sd(T1) and/or Sdi(T1),

some of which also incorporated Sd(T2), for predicting the maximum IDR. Note that 5%

damping was not necessarily used in calculating the spectral ordinates in their study.

They considered steel MRF structures of 3, 9, and 20 stories and both ordinary and near-

fault ground motion sets. They found that IM1I&2E, which incorporates Sd(T1), Sdi(T1),

Sd(T2), and the modal participation factors of the first and second modes of the structure,

was generally the most efficient and sufficient IM for all structures and ground motion

sets considered. An exception to the previous statement is for the 20-story structure under

the near-fault ground motions, for which a dependence on distance was observed.

Tothong and Luco (2007) also considered Sdi(T1) and found that for first-mode-

dominated structures, the drift-hazard and probability of collapse conditioned on this IM

were generally not dependent on the value of the ground motion used (opposed to

Sa(T1), which showed a dependence on ). They also used IM1I&2E for structures that were

not first-mode dominated and reached similar conclusions about the efficiency and

sufficiency of this IM.

Akkar and Miranda (2004) found that inelastic displacement ratios (the ratio of peak

inelastic to elastic displacement) of short-period SDOFs were sensitive to the ratio of

spectral velocity at the fundamental period to the PGV, particularly for weak structures

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 179

with lateral strength ratios greater than four. By incorporating this spectral ratio into the

prediction of inelastic displacement ratios (and therefore peak deformations of short-

period inelastic systems), they were generally able to reduce dispersion in the results by

at least 50%.

Researchers have also considered using PGV as an IM. Akkar and zen (2005) studied

deformation demands in SDOF systems with periods between 0.1 s and 4.0 s subjected to

near-fault records that did not exhibit strong pulse effects. They found that for moderate

to large levels of nonlinearity, PGV was typically significantly more correlated with the

deformation demand than PGA, PGV/PGA, and Sa(T1), especially for short-period

structures. They found that the dispersion of inelastic displacement ratios measured by

PGV and Sa(T1) were generally comparable, except for short-period structures with large

strength reduction factors, for which PGV yielded lower dispersions.

Bradley et al. (2010a; 2010b) studied PGA, PGV, Sd(T1), Sdi(T1), and SI as IMs for

assessing the structural response of a 10-story RC MRF structure. SI is the spectrum

intensity (Housner 1952) and is computed as the integral of pseudo-spectral velocity

between periods of 0.1 s and 2.5 s. They found that while PGV and SI produced

marginally higher dispersions on the collapse intensities compared to Sd(T1) and Sdi(T1),

the former IMs produced annual probability of collapse estimates that were significantly

smaller than those produced by Sd(T1) and Sdi(T1). The authors attributed this to the fact

that PGV and SI were significantly easier to predict from a GMPE perspective (i.e., they

had less dispersion in the expected intensity conditioned on magnitude and distance).

Similar conclusions were reached when considering the drift and acceleration hazards.

Kurama and Farrow (2003) examined the ability of several IMs to reduce scatter in the

peak lateral displacement demands of SDOF and MDOF systems. After scaling ground

motions to the mean IM value of the ground motion set, they computed the peak inelastic

displacement demands and compared each IM using the coefficient of variation (COV) of

the demands, which is the standard deviation normalized by the mean. They found that

spectral-based IMs such as Sa(T1) and Saavg (computed between T1 and a lengthened

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 180

period) generally resulted in the smallest COVs for SDOF systems. However, they noted

that the maximum incremental velocity (MIV), which is the area under the ground

acceleration between two consecutive zero crossings, generally produced the lowest

COVs for SDOF systems with periods between approximately 0.1 s and 0.5 s and large

strength reduction factors (R 6) and for systems on soft soil sites with fundamental

periods between approximately 0.2 s and 1.4 s and R 4. The authors also found that

MIV produced smaller COVs in the peak roof displacement and IDRs compared to Saavg

for four-story and an eight-story RC MRF structures using records obtained from soft soil

sites. A GMPE for MIV has also been developed (Guamn 2010).

This section explores using the spectral acceleration averaged over a period range (Saavg)

as an IM for collapse risk assessment. Saavg is computed as the geometric mean of

spectral acceleration values between periods T1 and TN

1/ N

N

Saavg (T1, , TN ) = Sa (Ti ) (6.1)

i =1

where N is the number of periods used to compute Saavg. Note that in Equation 6.1 the

subscripts on the periods do not indicate the modal periods (e.g., Ti for i = 1 is not

necessarily equal to the first mode period). A period range between 0.2T1 and 3T1 with

a uniform period spacing of 0.01 s will be used to compute Saavg throughout this chapter

unless noted otherwise. The effect of period range and spacing is studied in Chapter 7.

Note that while the geometric mean and arithmetic mean values are generally very

similar, the former has some advantages for computing the average spectral acceleration

as it is less sensitive to extreme spectral ordinates (i.e., very high or very low), which

may significantly influence the arithmetic mean value. More importantly, GMPEs for

Saavg that are used in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and the computation of seismic

hazard curves can be computed based on existing GMPEs for spectral acceleration at a

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 181

single period when Saavg is computed using the geometric mean. Further discussion on

obtaining GMPEs and hazard curves for Saavg is provided in Section 6.3.4.

SaRatio, as defined in Equation 5.13, is the ratio of Sa(T1) to Saavg. As shown in Section

5.6, a strong linear relationship exists between Sa(T1)col and SaRatio in the log-log

domain. For the purposes of this section the relationship is examined in the linear-linear

domain and is of the form

where m represents the slope of the line. In the linear regression analysis the ordinate

Sa(T1)col is constrained to be equal to zero when SaRatio = 0 (i.e., the fitted straight line

passes through zero). An example of the linear trend between Sa(T1)col and SaRatio is

presented in Figure 6.1, based on data from the case study described in Section 3.5. This

figure also includes the line and equation of the form shown in Equation 6.2 found

through linear regression of the data.

Figure 6.1: Sa(T1)col versus SaRatio with linear regression through the origin.

As shown in Figure 6.1, the data points do not lie perfectly on the regression line and are

scattered around it. The degree of scatter around this line is related to the efficiency of

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 182

6.2. Rearranging Equation 6.2 in terms of m yields

Sa(T1 )col

m= (6.3)

SaRatio

Rewriting Sa(T1)col in terms of the unscaled (i.e., as-recorded) value of Sa(T1) and using

the definition of SaRatio yields

m= (6.4)

Sa(T1 )unscaled

Sa avg ,unscaled

where SFcol denotes the minimum factor by which the (unscaled or as-recorded) ground

motion must be scaled to trigger the structure to collapse. In other words, SFcol is the

collapse scale factor and denotes the ratio between Sa(T1)col and Sa(T1)unscaled. Equation

6.4 simplifies to

Equation 6.5 indicates that if all data points in a plot of Sa(T1)col versus SaRatio were to

lie exactly on the regression line (i.e., if there were no scatter) Saavg would be a perfect

predictor of collapse intensity. This means that all ground motions would cause the

structure to collapse when the ground motion intensity meets or exceeds a certain value

of Saavg, which per Equation 6.5 equals the slope of the regression, m. In reality Saavg is

not a perfect predictor of collapse intensity, which is reflected by the scatter about the

regression line shown in Figure 6.1. The scatter around the straight line shown in Figure

6.1 then indicates that the ratio between Sa(T1)col and SaRatio changes from one ground

motion to another (i.e., exhibits record-to-record variability). The better or more efficient

Saavg is at predicting the collapse intensity, the less variability in the values of Saavg,col and

the closer the data points are to the regression of Sa(T1)col versus SaRatio.

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 183

In general, the median value of Saavg,col from the collapse fragility curve and m, the slope

of the regression between Sa(T1)col and SaRatio, are expected to be similar because both

measures describe the best fit to the collapse intensity data; however, they are not

necessarily expected to be exactly equal to each other because they have different

definitions of the best fit. The median value of Saavg,col is determined by the method of

maximum likelihood, which seeks the lognormal distribution parameters (i.e., the median

collapse intensity and the dispersion values) that maximize the likelihood of observing

the collapse intensity values given the candidate values of the lognormal distribution

parameters. The slope of the regression between Sa(T1)col and SaRatio, on the other hand,

is determined using ordinary linear least squares regression, which seeks the slope that

minimizes the sum of the squared residuals (i.e., the differences between the observed

values of the data points and the values predicted by the regression). A comparison of

these values for the case study discussed in Section 3.5 illustrates their similarity: the

median value of Saavg,col is 0.70 g as shown in Figure 6.2(b) while the slope of the

regression between Sa(T1)col and SaRatio is 0.71 g as shown in Figure 6.1.

Figure 6.2: Collapse fragility curve for (a) IM = Sa(T1); (b) IM = Saavg. The circles are the

collapse intensities of individual ground motions, and the solid lines are the lognormal

fragility curves fitted to the data using the method of moments.

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 184

6.3.2 Why Saavg is more efficient than Sa(T1) in predicting the collapse

intensity

Figure 6.2 compares the collapse fragility curves using two different IMs for the case

study discussed in Section 3.5: Figure 6.2(a) uses Sa(T1) while Figure 6.2(b) uses Saavg.

As shown in this figure, the use of Saavg as an IM results in a significant decrease in the

dispersion (ln or ) of the collapse intensities compared to the value computed when

Sa(T1) is used as IM: lnSaAvg = 0.22 versus lnSa(T1) = 0.39, which corresponds to a 44%

reduction in dispersion.

Though the median collapse intensities are different for the two IMs shown in Figure 6.2

(0.70 g for Saavg versus 1.03 g for Sa(T1)), the smaller dispersion when using Saavg is

unaffected by this difference due to the lognormal distribution of the data. For example, if

a scale factor of 1.03/0.70 were applied to all Saavg,col values to make the median collapse

intensity the same for both IMs, the dispersion of the scaled Saavg,col values would still be

lnSaAvg = 0.22.

To illustrate the large reduction in the dispersion of collapse intensities when Saavg is

used as the IM, Figure 6.3 presents a scatter diagram of collapse intensities for each

individual record when using each of the two IMs. Figure 6.3(a) shows the collapse

intensities when using Sa(T1) as IM, while Figure 6.3(b) shows the collapse intensities

when using Saavg. The significant reduction in scatter around the median value (the

horizontal black line) is apparent when using Saavg.

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 185

Figure 6.3: Collapse intensity scatter plots for (a) IM = Sa(T1); (b) IM = Saavg. The

horizontal black line indicates the median value.

The colors of the dots in Figure 6.3 correspond to the value of SaRatio for each ground

motion. SaRatio, as previously defined in Chapter 5, is the ratio of Sa(T1) to Saavg. Figure

6.3(a) shows that there is strong relationship between Sa(T1)col and SaRatio, with small

values of SaRatio (i.e., dark blue dots) generally indicating small values of Sa(T1)col

(damaging records that trigger collapse at low levels of Sa(T1)) and large values of

SaRatio (i.e., orange and red dots) generally indicating large values of Sa(T1)col (more

benign records that will not produce collapse unless they are scaled to have very large

values of Sa(T1)). This indicates that the spectral shape of a record, as captured/measured

by SaRatio, affects the collapse intensity of a record when Sa(T1) is used as an IM. As

discussed in Sections 5.6 and 5.7 this has important implications when computing the

collapse fragility curve and the collapse risk because the SaRatios of the ground motions

used to compute the structural response can bias the results. Methods for incorporating

the effect of SaRatio when using Sa(T1) as an IM were discussed in Section 5.7. Figure

6.3(b), meanwhile, indicates that there is no discernible relationship between SaRatio and

Saavg,col. This suggests that Saavg is sufficient with respect to SaRatio (this will be

examined more formally in Section 6.3.3.3) and accounts for spectral shape features

affecting structural response that Sa(T1) misses.

The previous case study is not the only evidence that Saavg is a more efficient predictor of

collapse intensity than Sa(T1). For example, Tsantaki et al. (2012) studied bilinear non-

deteriorating SDOF systems with periods ranging from T1 = 0.2 s to 5.0 s that were

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 186

(where T1 varied between 0.2 s and 1.2 s, with larger values of T1 associated with

larger values of T1), Tsantaki et al. found that, on average, Saavg reduced the dispersion in

collapse intensities by at least 25% and up to 45% compared to Sa(T1).

Over 650 generic moment-resisting frame (MRF), generic shear wall, and reinforced

concrete (RC) MRF structures were used as part of this study. Details about these

structures including the structural properties and modeling assumptions and the ground

motions used are described in Appendix B, but briefly the generic MRF and generic shear

wall structures are those used by Zareian and Krawinkler (2009, Chapter 4) and the RC

MRFs are those used by Haselton and Deierlein (2007, Table 3-3). The generic MRF and

generic shear wall structures range from four to sixteen stories with fundamental periods

between T1 = 0.2 s and 3.2 s while the RC MRF structures ranged from one to twenty

stories with fundamental periods between T1 = 0.42 s and 2.63 s. Using collapse data

generously provided by these authors, the collapse intensities reported in terms of

Sa(T1)col were converted to Saavg,col by back-calculating the scale factor required to

produce collapse for a given record and then multiplying the Saavg value of the unscaled

record by this factor. Collapse fragility curves were generated for each structure and the

dispersion on the collapse intensities was recorded.

A summary of results from these case studies provided in Table 6.1 shows that using

Saavg reduces the dispersion in collapse intensities by an average of approximately 40%

for generic MRF and shear wall structures and over 50% for RC MRF structures

compared to dispersions computed when using Sa(T1). In addition to being more efficient

on average, Saavg was also more efficient than Sa(T1) for all but four of the structures

examined. For these four structures lnSaAvg was no more than 6% greater than lnSa(T1).

These results provide compelling reasons for using Saavg as an IM instead of Sa(T1) if

efficiency of the IM when estimating structural collapse is a primary concern. Discussion

about the effects of structural system, fundamental period, and period range used for

averaging on the efficiency of Saavg are provided in Chapter 7.

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 187

Table 6.1: Summary of dispersion on the collapse fragility curve for Saavg and Sa(T1).

No. of ln ln Reduction in ln

Data set

structures Saavg Sa(T1) using Saavg (%)*

Mean Mean Mean Range

Generic MRFs 396 0.22 0.38 40 (-6) - 66

Generic Shear Walls 252 0.28 0.48 41 17 - 67

RC MRFs 30 0.20 0.44 54 40 - 63

* Difference between lnSa(T1) and lnSaAvg, expressed as a percentage of lnSa(T1)

So why is Saavg more efficient at predicting the collapse intensity than Sa(T1) (i.e., why is

there less dispersion in the collapse intensities when using Saavg as an IM)? Sa(T1)

measures the pseudo-acceleration of an elastic SDOF oscillator. As such, it is, by

definition, the best predictor for estimating the peak displacement (or pseudo-

acceleration) response of a 5%-damped linear elastic oscillator and therefore can be a

good predictor of deformation response parameters for MDOF structures that are

dominated by the first mode and have linear behavior or exhibit low levels of

nonlinearity. However, Sa(T1) does not provide information about the peak (elastic)

response of oscillators with other periods that might provide information and may be

important when estimating the structural response of strongly nonlinear structures.

Meanwhile, Saavg contains information about peak response of oscillators at other

periods, and therefore it provides additional information that is valuable when estimating

the collapse of structure. For example, periods between 0.2T1 and 3T1 were used to

compute Saavg for the case study, and this period range includes the first and second

modes of the structure. Sa(T1) also does not consider how the response changes once the

system yields (i.e., the inelastic response). When a system yields the initial conditions

(i.e., the deformation and velocity) at the onset of severe long-duration ground motion

pulses change relative to those in the elastic system, and the response can be very

different from the elastic response. This is especially true if the elastic ordinate at the

fundamental period is at or very near a spectral peak or a spectral valley, as the initial

conditions of the oscillator when hit by major ground motion pulses are a major factor in

the creation of these spectral features. As discussed in Chapter 5, the response of a

system to a pulse can be very sensitive to the state of the system (i.e., the displacement

and velocity) at the initiation of severe pulses. While Saavg is also based on elastic

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 188

ordinates, the influence of initial conditions is minimized by averaging the response over

a range of periods, and therefore also encompassing a variety of initial conditions.

As demonstrated in Chapter 5, the spectral shape of the ground motion record is strongly

correlated with the collapse intensity when using Sa(T1). When the records were scaled to

a common value of Sa(T1), records with sharply increasing spectral ordinates for T > T1

were more damaging (i.e., they had lower Sa(T1)col values) than records with relatively

constant or decreasing spectral ordinates for T > T1. The increasing spectral shape was

shown to be the result of an acceleration pulse or series of pulses in the record with

significant incremental velocities combined with the initial conditions of the elastic

systems at the onset of the pulse(s). These pulses were also shown to produce inelastic

displacement excursions in the structure which can lead to ratcheting (accumulating

displacements in primarily one direction) and cause sidesway collapse. By taking an

average spectral value over a range of periods, Saavg accounts directly for spectral shape

features and indirectly for the underlying pulses in the ground motion that cause damage.

Stated somewhat differently, the response spectrum can be viewed as a signature of the

duration and intensity of a few individual ground motion pulses or pulse segments within

the ground acceleration combined with the initial conditions/state of the system when

the pulse hits the oscillator at its base. Saavg incorporates more information about the

ground motion by taking the average value of the signature over several points as

opposed to Sa(T1), which takes the value of the signature at a single period and

therefore is strongly affected by the state of the system at the onset of the pulse. The

additional information about the record that Saavg incorporates is what makes it a more

efficient measure of collapse intensity than Sa(T1).

This section evaluates the sufficiency of collapse intensities measured by Saavg with

respect to magnitude, distance, and spectral shape. Essentially, this section explores

whether some ground motion parameter influences the value of Saavg,col (e.g., whether

records from large magnitude events are likely to produce either larger of smaller values

of Saavg,col compared to records from smaller magnitude events). It is desirable that the

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 189

values of Saavg,col be conditionally independent of (i.e., not affected by) the values of the

ground motion parameters that are already incorporated in estimating the intensity

measure in the seismic hazard analysis so that no bias exists in the structural response

results due to the ground motions selected for response analysis when scaled to common

values of the intensity measure.

values with the ground motion parameter of interest to identify possible trends (e.g.,

systematic increments or reductions) in the response parameters computed using records

with different ground motion parameters. The regression is of the form

E[Y | X = x] = 0 + 1x (6.6)

value of X, 0 and 1 are coefficients determined by the regression, and E[Y | X = x] is the

expected value of Y given some value x. A hypothesis test is then performed with the null

hypothesis being that 1 = 0 (i.e., that the expected value of Y does not depend on the

value of X). The probability of observing a 1 value at least as large (in absolute value

terms) as the 1 value found by the regression given that the true value of 1 equals 0 is

calculated. This probability is called the p-value and is used to determine whether the

null hypothesis can be rejected at some predefined significance level. A 5% significance

level is typically used when judging the sufficiency of an IM (e.g., Baker and Cornell

2005b; Luco and Cornell 2007; Bradley et al. 2010a), meaning that a p-value of less than

0.05 indicates that the IM is not sufficient with respect to the ground motion parameter of

interest. The 5% significance level is also used here. The natural logarithm of the collapse

intensities is used because the linear regression and computation of the p-value assume

that Y is normally distributed (e.g., Benjamin and Cornell 1970). The collapse fragility

curve seen in Figure 6.2(b) shows that the Saavg,col values are lognormally distributed,

meaning that ln(Saavg,col) is normally distributed. The lognormal distribution of the

Saavg,col values is also confirmed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov goodness-of-fit test (see,

e.g., Benjamin and Cornell 1970) at the 5% significance level.

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 190

6.3.3.1 Magnitude

Figure 6.4 shows the natural logarithm of the collapse intensities measured by Saavg

plotted with respect to the earthquake magnitude (Mw). An ordinary linear least-squares

regression reveals a slope of -0.07 with a p-value of 0.14, indicating that collapse

intensities are sufficient with respect to magnitude. Note that the range of magnitudes

considered is rather small (Mw from 6.93 to 7.62) and a more thorough evaluation would

consider a wider range of magnitudes. In ordinary linear least-squares regression, each

data point is weighted equally. Because 168 of the 274 ground motions are from the Mw =

7.62 Chi-Chi earthquake, the ordinary regression is heavily influenced by how well it fits

the Chi-Chi data. To determine how significantly this affected the regression, weighted

regressions were performed and the sufficiency was reevaluated. The data points were

weighted so that specified magnitude windows have equal influence on the regression.

The weighted regression was repeated using different magnitude windows to test the

sensitivity of the results, but none of the windows tested produced p-values smaller 0.05,

which suggests that the values of Saavg,col are sufficient with respect to magnitude.

Figure 6.4: ln(Saavg,col) plotted against earthquake magnitude with the ordinary linear least

squares regression of the data.

The fact that the p-values of the regressions are somewhat close to 0.05 (the threshold

between sufficiency and insufficiency) is not surprising given that earthquake magnitude

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 191

influences the frequency content and thus the spectral shape of a ground motion. This is

reflected in ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs), which use a magnitude-

dependent term to predict the response spectrum. Figure 6.5 shows the response spectra

predicted by the 2008 Boore and Atkinson (Boore and Atkinson 2008) GMPE, denoted

BA08. Spectra are computed for Mw = 6.5, 7.0, and 7.5 conditioned on a Joyner-Boore

distance (Rjb) of 12 km, which represents the average Rjb of ground motions used in the

case study, a shear wave velocity of Vs30 = 285 m/s, which represents the shear wave

velocity at the case study site, and an unspecified fault type. The unscaled spectra in

Figure 6.5(a) show that the spectral ordinates at a given period increase with magnitude,

as expected, and that the width of the spectral peak in the short period range also

increases with magnitude. Figure 6.5(b) shows the same spectra scaled to a common

value of Saavg (equal to 0.12 g), where the dashed vertical lines bracket the period range

used to compute Saavg (from 0.2T1 and 3T1, where T1 = 1.33 s from the four-story steel

case study building). Saavg is the geometric mean of spectral values over a period range

can be computed as shown in Equation 6.1 or, equivalently, by taking the (arithmetic)

mean of the natural logarithms of the spectral values. The scaled spectra shown in Figure

6.5(b) are re-plotted in Figure 6.5(c) using a logarithmic axis for the spectral values,

which makes it easier to observe differences in the spectra at longer periods and to see

that the Saavg values of the spectra are equal. For the conditions used to create the spectra

in Figure 6.5, it is expected that ground motions from Mw = 7.5 events will have greater

spectral values at moderate to long periods and smaller spectral values at short periods

relative to ground motions from Mw = 6.5 or 7.0 events for equal values of Saavg.

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 192

Figure 6.5: Response spectra predicted by BA08 for different magnitudes with Rjb =

12 km, Vs30 = 285 m/s, and unspecified fault type: (a) unscaled spectra; (b) spectra scaled

to a common value of Saavg (linear Sa(T) axis); (c) spectra scaled to a common value of

Saavg (logarithmic Sa(T) axis). The dashed vertical lines bracket the period range used to

compute Saavg.

As discussed in Chapter 5 and Section 6.3.2, the response spectrum is a signature of the

ground motion that reflects the duration and intensity of individual pulses or series of

pulses it contains (i.e., the frequency content). The frequency content of the ground

motion can significantly affect the response of a structure; however Saavg does not

directly account for relative differences in frequency content between ground motions

because it measures the average value of the spectrum. For example, two ground motions

can have the same Saavg value, such as the ground motions shown in Figure 6.5(c), but

one ground motion may have significant high frequency content (large spectral values at

short periods) while the other has significant moderate frequency content (large spectral

values at medium periods). Because Saavg does not directly account for relative

differences in the frequency content of ground motions that can affect the structural

response and because the frequency content of a ground motion is related to the

earthquake magnitude, it is not surprising that the p-values of the regressions between

Saavg,col and magnitude are somewhat close to the threshold between sufficiency and

insufficiency. These p-values do show, however, that there is some small influence of

earthquake magnitude on Saavg,col but that it is not statistically significant (at a 5%

significance level) for this case study.

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 193

The sufficiency of Saavg,col with respect to earthquake magnitude is further, and more

generally, supported by the case studies summarized in Table 6.2, which presents

statistics on the p-values of the linear relationship between ln(Saavg,col) and Mw for many

different structures briefly described earlier. As shown in Table 6.2, the mean p-value for

each structural type is significantly greater than 0.05. It is worth noting that only 53% of

the RC MRF structures show that Saavg,col is sufficient with respect to magnitude. This

may be related to the fact that the ground motions used for these structures cover a wider

range of magnitudes than those used for the other structures. One would expect that the

wider range of magnitudes would lead to larger differences in the relative frequency

content between the ground motions, making any relationship between Saavg,col and

magnitude more apparent. As previously stated, magnitude typically affects the frequency

content of the ground motion (i.e., the intensity and duration of the pulses in the ground

motion), which is not directly accounted for by Saavg and can affect the response of the

structure. The ground motions used for the generic MRF and generic shear wall structures

presented in Table 6.2 have a comparatively narrow magnitude range (Mw = 6.53 6.93

versus 6.50 7.62) so it is not surprising that their Saavg,col values demonstrate

significantly less dependency on magnitude than the RC MRF structures. In fact, all but 9

of the 648 generic MRF and generic shear wall structures show that Saavg,col was

sufficient with respect to magnitude at the 5% significance level.

Table 6.2: Summary of p-values for the relationship between Saavg,col and earthquake

magnitude.

No. of %

Structure Mw p-values

structures Sufficient*

Range Mean Range

Generic MRFs 6.53 6.93 396 98% 0.45 0.02 1.00

Generic Shear Walls 6.53 6.93 252 100% 0.63 0.08 1.00

RC MRFs 6.50 7.62 30 53% 0.21 2x10-5 0.90

*

Indicates percentage of structures with p-values of at least 0.05

To put these results into perspective, only 20% of the RC MRF structures are sufficient

with respect to magnitude when the IM is Sa(T1), currently the de-facto IM of choice,

compared to 53% of the structures when the IM is Saavg. While neither of these IMs

directly accounts for differences in the relative frequency content between ground

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 194

ensures that the average spectral value over a given period (frequency) range is equal

among the ground motions whereas Sa(T1) ensures that the spectral value at only a single

period (frequency) is equal among ground motions.

Interestingly, the RC MRF structures for which Sa(T1)col was sufficient or almost

sufficient with respect to magnitude were typically the same structures for which Saavg,col

was not sufficient with respect to magnitude and vice-versa. This is illustrated in Figure

6.6, which shows the p-value of the relationship between collapse intensity and

magnitude for each of the 30 RC MRF structures. The sufficiency of Sa(T1)col or Saavg,col

with respect to magnitude appears to be related to the number of stories and/or the first-

mode period of the structure as Structures 1 13 have between one and four stories and

T1 between 0.42 s and 1.16 s while Structures 14 30 have between 8 and 20 stories and

T1 between 1.57 s and 2.63 s. A possible reason why Saavg,col is not sufficient with respect

to magnitude for Structures 1 13 is that the dependence of spectral shape on magnitude

is typically most apparent in the short period range (the width and height of the spectral

peak), so the response of structures with shorter periods may be more likely to be affected

by the earthquake magnitude. As previously stated, Saavg cannot distinguish differences in

the relative frequency content between ground motions that can affect the structural

response.

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 195

Figure 6.6: p-values for the relationship between magnitude and ln(Saavg,col) or

ln(Sa(T1)col) for the RC MRF case study structures.

In summary, case studies of nearly 700 MRF and shear wall structures show that Saavg

(computed using a period range between 0.2T1 and 3T1) is, in general, sufficient with

respect magnitude. However, Saavg is not sufficient with respect to magnitude for the case

study RC MRF structures with T1 1.16 s, for which the ground motions span a notably

wider range of magnitudes (Mw from 6.50 to 7.62). For this subset of structures the

average slope of the linear regression between ln(Saavg,col) and Mw is -0.24 meaning that,

on average, the Saavg,col value found using a ground motion from a Mw = 6.50 event is

expected to be approximately 30% larger than the Saavg,col value found using a ground

motion from a Mw = 7.62 event. It should be noted, however, that the correlation between

ln(Saavg,col) and Mw is only moderate at best with an average correlation coefficient of =

0.38 and an average R2 value of 0.14 for these structures, indicating significant scatter in

the relationship.

6.3.3.2 Distance

Figure 6.7 shows the collapse intensities plotted against the source-to-site distance

measured using the Joyner-Boore distance (Rjb). As shown in Figure 6.7, a regression of

this data produces a slope of -0.002 and a p-value of 0.15, indicating that Saavg is

sufficient with respect to distance. It is not surprising that the trend between Saavg,col and

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 196

distance is weaker than the trend between Saavg,col and magnitude because distance

typically has much less effect on spectral shape than magnitude in GMPEs (Abrahamson

et al. 2008).

Figure 6.7: ln(Saavg,col) plotted against source-to-site distance with the ordinary linear

least squares regression of the data.

The sufficiency of Saavg with respect to distance is supported by other case studies as

shown in Table 6.3, which shows statistics on the p-values of the linear relationship

between ln(Saavg,col) and Rjb for many different case studies. As shown in Table 6.3, the

mean p-value for each structural type is significantly greater than 0.05.

Table 6.3: Summary of p-values for the relationship between Saavg,col and distance.

No. of %

Data set Rjb [km] p-values

structures Sufficient*

Range Mean Range

Generic MRFs 0.0 37.7 396 99% 0.53 0.03 1.00

Generic Shear Walls 0.0 37.7 252 100% 0.63 0.14 1.00

RC MRFs 0.9 74.2 30 93% 0.47 0.01 0.99

*

Indicates percentage of structures with p-values of at least 0.05

This section investigates the sufficiency of collapse intensities measured by Saavg with

respect to spectral shape, specifically the parameters and SaRatio As previous results

showed that the values of Sa(T1)col were, in general, dependent on these parameters, it

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 197

was then desired to study whether measuring the collapse intensities using Saavg would

alleviate some of this dependence. Comparisons are made between the sufficiency of

Saavg and Sa(T1) with respect to these parameters.

6.3.3.3.1

Figure 6.8 shows the collapse intensities plotted with respect to the values for spectral

acceleration at T1 measured by the BA08 GMPE. As shown in Figure 6.8, a regression of

this data produces a slope of 0.017 and a p-value of 0.30, indicating that Saavg is sufficient

with respect to .

Figure 6.8: ln(Saavg,col) plotted against (T1) with the ordinary linear least squares

regression of the data.

Table 6.4 summarizes the p-values of the relationship between ln(Saavg,col) and for the

other case studies. Though the mean p-value for each structural type is above the 0.05

threshold for sufficiency, only slightly more than half of all structures considered have p-

values greater than 0.05. For perspective, only 3% of the generic MRF structures, only

1% of the generic shear wall structures and none of the RC MRF structures are sufficient

with respect to when the IM is Sa(T1), currently the most commonly used IM.

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 198

Table 6.4: Summary of p-values for the relationship between Saavg,col and .

No. of %

Data set p-values

structures Sufficient*

Mean Range

Generic MRFs 396 61% 0.16 4x10-4 0.98

Generic Shear Walls 252 41% 0.09 6x10-4 0.95

RC MRFs 30 43% 0.13 3x10-5 0.94

*

Indicates percentage of structures with p-values of at least 0.05

and the sufficiency of Saavg,col with respect to ; however, a trend was observed with

respect to the period range used to compute Saavg. When using a period range of 0 to 3T1

(instead of 0.2T1 to 3T1) to compute Saavg, the percent of structures for which Saavg,col is

sufficient with respect to increases to 77% for the generic MRF structures and 81% for

the RC MRFs. On average, this change in period range does not affect the efficiency of

Saavg as an IM for these structures. As discussed in Chapter 7, the optimal period range

for maximum efficiency of Saavg is approximately 0 to 6T1 for the generic shear wall

structures. When Saavg is computed over a period range between 0 and 6T1 for the

generic shear wall structures, the percent of structures for which Saavg,col is sufficient with

respect to increases to 83%. Thus, it is believed that Saavg,col is, in general, sufficient

with respect to provided an appropriate period range is used to compute Saavg.

6.3.3.3.2 SaRatio

As discussed in Section 5.6, SaRatio is a spectral shape parameter that measures how

large Sa(T1) is relative to ordinates at neighboring periods and therefore is a direct

measure of spectral shape. When the collapse intensities measured by Saavg are plotted

against the SaRatio values using a log-log scale as shown in Figure 6.9, the slope is

approximately -0.08. The corresponding p-value is 0.04, which indicates that Saavg is

insufficient with respect to SaRatio at a 5% significance level; however, this value is very

close to the threshold between sufficient and insufficiency (a p-value of 0.05).

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 199

Figure 6.9: ln(Saavg,col) plotted against ln(SaRatio) with the ordinary linear least-squares

regression of the data.

Table 6.5 summarizes the p-values of the relationship between ln(Saavg,col) and

ln(SaRatio) for the other case studies. Though the mean p-value for each structural type is

above the 0.05 threshold for sufficiency, only approximately half of the generic shear

wall structures and half of the RC MRF structures considered have p-values greater than

0.05. For comparison, none of the 678 structures considered in Table 6.5 are sufficient

with respect to SaRatio when the IM is Sa(T1), currently the most commonly used (i.e.,

de-facto) IM of choice.

Table 6.5: Summary of p-values for the relationship between Saavg,col and SaRatio.

No. of %

Data set p-values

structures Sufficient*

Mean Range

Generic MRFs 396 88% 0.33 2x10-5 1.00

Generic Shear Walls 252 48% 0.14 2x10-5 0.98

RC MRFs 30 50% 0.20 7x10-9 0.88

*

Indicates percentage of structures with p-values of at least 0.05

Unlike the previous case in which computing Saavg over a different period range affected

the sufficiency of Saavg,col with respect to , using a different period range to compute

Saavg did not significantly affect the percentage of structures for which Saavg,col is

sufficient with respect to SaRatio. As previously discussed, Saavg does not distinguish

between the relative frequency content of records. The frequency content at T1 relative to

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 200

other periods as measured by SaRatio appears to affect the response of some structures

but not all. While on average Saavg,col is sufficient with respect to SaRatio, exceptions

exist as noted above.

The previous case studies demonstrated that typically (1) Saavg is a significantly more

efficient IM for measuring the collapse intensity of a structure compared to Sa(T1) and (2)

Saavg is also more sufficient than Sa(T1) with respect to magnitude and spectral shape as

measured by and SaRatio. Research on and use of Saavg as an IM has increased in recent

years (e.g., Bianchini 2008; Bianchini et al. 2009; Bojrquez and Iervolino 2011;

Tsantaki et al. 2012; Shakib and Pirizadeh 2013); however, a significant obstacle to

adopting Saavg in practice is related to obtaining a hazard curve in terms of Saavg (SaAvg).

This is of concern whether Saavg is used for collapse risk assessment as done here or for

loss assessment due to non-collapse. Obtaining SaAvg is straightforward if one knows the

faulting rupture rates and probability distributions of magnitude and distance at a site

because existing GMPEs can be used to predict the probability of exceeding a given

value of Saavg conditioned on magnitude and distance (this is discussed later). The issue

of adopting Saavg in practice is that many structural engineers do not have access to the

data needed to compute a seismic hazard curve and/or rely on tools such as the USGS

Hazard Curve Application (USGS 2012a) or the OpenSHA Hazard Curve Calculator

(Field 2013), which currently provide Sa(T) but not SaAvg. It should be noted, however,

that currently Item 15 of OpenSHAs project goals includes implementing a GMPE for

Saavg, which would facilitate providing hazard curves in terms of this IM.

A hazard curve for a given IM is obtained through standard probabilistic seismic hazard

analysis (PSHA) calculations (see, e.g., Baker 2008) as follows

n mmax rmax

(IM > x ) = (M i > m min ) P(IM > x | m, r ) f M i ,Ri (m, r ) dr dm (6.7)

i =1 mmin 0

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 201

where (IM > x) denotes the mean annual frequency of the IM exceeding a value x, n is

the number of seismic sources considered, (Mi > mmin) is the mean annual frequency of

exceeding an event with magnitude mmin at source i, mmax and rmax are maximum

magnitude and distance, respectively, considered, P(IM > x| m,r) is the probability that

the IM exceeds a value x given values of magnitude and distance (which is provided by a

GMPE), and fMi,Ri(m,r) is the joint probability distribution function for magnitude and

radius.

If a GMPE for Saavg is not available then, as previously mentioned, existing GMPEs can

be used to estimate P(Saavg > x| m,r), permitting the computation of a hazard curve in

terms of Saavg. To explain how this is achieved it is helpful to look at the natural

logarithm of Saavg. Taking the natural logarithm of both sides of Equation 6.1 and

applying properties of logarithms yields the following expression for ln(Saavg)

N

( )

ln Sa avg (T1 , , T N ) =

1

N

ln(Sa(Ti )) (6.8)

i =1

Equation 6.8 shows that ln(Saavg) is computed as the sum of the ln(Sa(Ti)) terms

multiplied by a constant. Jayaram and Baker (2008) showed that the ln(Sa(Ti)) terms can

be assumed to be jointly normal, which as discussed by Baker and Cornell (2006a) and

Baker and Jayaram (2008) means that ln(Saavg) can then be assumed to be normally

distributed. Note that distribution of ln(Saavg) would not necessarily be normal if the

ln(Sa(Ti)) terms did not have a joint normal distribution.

Given that ln(Saavg) can be assumed to be normally distributed its probability distribution

is then completely defined by its expected (mean) value and variance (2), which are

computed as follows

N

[ ( )]

E ln Sa avg (T1 , , T N ) =

1

N

E[ln(Sa(Ti ))] (6.9)

i =1

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 202

N N

[ ]

2 ln (Sa avg (T1 , , T N )) =

1

ln(Sa(Ti )),ln (Sa (T j )) ln(Sa(Ti )) ln(Sa(Tj )) (6.10)

N2 i =1 j =1

where E[ ] denotes the expected value, 2[ ] indicates the variance, and ln(Sa(Ti)),ln(Sa(Tj)) is

the correlation coefficient between ln(Sa(Ti)) and ln(Sa(Tj)). Empirical equations have

been developed for estimating ln(Sa(Ti)),ln(Sa(Tj)). For example, Baker and Jayaram (2008)

developed an equation that can be used with four different GMPEs. It should be noted

that the E[ln(Sa(Ti))] terms shown in Equation 6.9 and the ln(Sa(Ti)) terms shown in

Equation 6.10 are readably available from existing GMPEs for Sa(Ti) and, although not

explicitly shown, are conditioned on the magnitude, distance, and other characteristics

such as site conditions and faulting mechanism. Therefore, E[ln(Saavg)] and 2lnSaAvg are

conditioned on the same magnitude, distance, and other site conditions used to compute

the E[ln(Sa(Ti))] and ln(Sa(Ti)) terms.

Computing the P(IM > x| m,r) term in Equation 6.7 for IM = Saavg is straightforward

using the information provided by Equations 6.9 and 6.10 and is shown as follows

( )

P Sa avg > x | m, r = 1

[ (

ln (x ) E ln Sa avg )]

(6.11)

ln SaAvg

where ( ) is the standard normal cumulative distribution function and E[ln(Saavg)] and

lnSaAvg are conditioned on the m and r values. Knowing the fault rupture rates and

distributions of magnitude and distance for each fault, a hazard curve for Saavg can be

then be computed with Equation 6.7.

Obtaining the values of E[ln(Saavg)] and lnSaAvg from Equations 6.9 and 6.10,

respectively, is referred here as the indirect approach as these values are computed using

E[ln(Sa(Ti))] and ln(Sa(Ti)), which are determined by regressions of the ln(Sa(Ti)) values

of individual ground motions. In a direct approach one would compute E[ln(Saavg)] and

lnSaAvg from a regression analysis directly on the ln(Saavg) values of individual ground

motions (i.e., developing a GMPE for ln(Saavg)). Reasons why the values of E[ln(Saavg)]

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 203

and/or lnSaAvg may different between the direct and indirect approaches are summarized

as follows: (1) different records may be used in a regression of ln(Sa(T)) versus a

regression of ln(Saavg) because of limitations associated with the maximum usable period

of some records; (2) equations for predicting E[ln(Sa(Ti))] with existing GMPEs do not

yield exact matches to the empirical data (i.e., residuals may differ from zero); and (3)

equations for predicting the correlation coefficients used Equation 6.10 also do not yield

exact matches to the empirical data.

Expanding on reason (1), if the maximum usable period of a record falls within the period

range used to compute ln(Saavg), the record would presumably be used to predict

ln(Sa(T)) values for periods less than the maximum usable period but would not be used

to compute ln(Saavg). Given the relatively large number of ground motions used by

typical GMPEs such as BA08 (typically at least 1,000 for moderate periods and several

hundred for a period of 10 s), differences in the ground motions used may not lead to

significant differences in the E[ln(Saavg)] and lnSaAvg values computed with each

approach. In reference to reasons (2) and (3), even though the equations used to predict

spectral ordinates and correlation coefficients do not produce exact matches to the

empirical data, Baker and Jayaram (2008) found good agreement between the correlation

coefficient values predicted by their equations and the empirical values, especially when

both periods of interest were less than five seconds.

The indirect approach is convenient as the terms in Equations 6.9 and 6.10 needed to

compute E[ln(Saavg)] and lnSaAvg, respectively, are readably available as they are

provided by existing GMPEs and approximate equations (in the case of the correlation

coefficients). On the other hand, the direct approach requires developing a new GMPE

using regressions of ln(Saavg). Furthermore, for the new GMPE to be as useful as existing

GMPEs such as the NGA GMPEs (Abrahamson et al. 2008) that provide the expected

values and variances of spectral ordinates at periods between T = 0.01 s and 10 s, the

regressions of ln(Saavg) would need to be performed for a myriad of period ranges.

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 204

This section evaluates the performance of different IMs, specifically Sa(T1), Saavg, and

peak ground velocity (PGV), with respect to their collapse risk predictions for a case

study. The discussion focuses on how the sufficiency and efficiency of different IMs

affects the collapse risk estimates as well as how the collapse risk estimate of a given IM

varies when different ground motions are used. The collapse risk estimate is quantified

using mean annual frequency of collapse (c). Sa(T1) is chosen as it is currently the most

widely used IM while Saavg is chosen because, as shown in the previous section, it

generally provides an improved prediction of structural response compared to Sa(T1).

PGV is also chosen herein as a proxy for the incremental velocity of pulses in the ground

motion as the velocity history of a ground motion is obtained by integrating the

acceleration history, and thus in many cases it may provide a relatively efficient

predictions of structural response. A case study by Bradley et al. (2010b) showed that the

dispersion of collapse intensities measured by Sa(T1) and PGV were comparable although

PGV produced lower collapse risk estimates. The latter was attributed primarily to the

ability of the GMPE to predict the value of PGV with less uncertainty compared to Sa(T1)

due to a smaller record-to-record variability.

The structure described in Section 3.5 is again used for evaluating the various IMs, and

the site is adapted from a hypothetical site used by Baker (2008, Section 1.4). The

seismicity at the site is dominated by a single fault located R = 10 km from the site. The

magnitude distribution is described by the bounded Gutenberg-Richter recurrence law,

which imposes a limit on the maximum earthquake (mmax) a source can produce. The

cumulative distribution function that describes FM(m), the probability of observing an

earthquake with a magnitude of less than or equal to m is

1 10 b ( m mmin )

FM (m ) = , m min < m < m max (6.12)

1 10 b ( mmax mmin )

where b is the relative ratio of small to large earthquakes in the region and mmin is the

minimum considered earthquake magnitude. For this site b = 1, mmin = 6, and mmax = 8.

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 205

The mean annual rupture rate of the fault is taken as (M > mmin) = 0.02. The fault rupture

is assumed to include the segment of the fault located nearest to the site so that Rjb, the

minimum horizontal distance from the site to the surface projection of the rupture area, is

constant and equal to 10 km. The average shear wave velocity at the site is Vs30 =

285 m/s.

The IMs considered include Sa(T1), Saavg and PGV, where T1 = 1.33 s and Saavg is

computed using a period range of 0.2T1 to 3T1 with a uniform period spacing of 0.01 s.

The hazard curves for each IM are computing using Equation 6.7 with the BA08 GMPE

used to describe the probability of exceeding a given intensity level conditioned on the

magnitude, distance, and site conditions. The correlation coefficients defined by Baker

and Jayaram (2008) are used to compute lnSaAvg using Equation 6.10. The seismic hazard

curves are shown in Figure 6.10(a) for Sa(T1) and Saavg and in Figure 6.10(b) for PGV.

The MRCD 137 set of ground motions described in Section 3.3 and listed in Appendix A

are used here to analyze the response of the structure and obtain the collapse fragility

curve for each IM. The collapse fragility curves and c deaggregation curves are shown in

Figure 6.10(c) and Figure 6.10(e), respectively, for Sa(T1) and Saavg and in Figure 6.10(d)

and Figure 6.10(f), respectively, for PGV. Figure 6.10(a) shows that for a given intensity

level Sa(T1) has a greater mean annual frequency of exceedance than Saavg. It should be

noted that this does not necessarily lead to Sa(T1) producing a higher collapse risk

estimate than Saavg because the probability of collapse at a given intensity level is greater

for Saavg than Sa(T1) for nearly all intensity levels of interest as seen in Figure 6.10(c).

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 206

Figure 6.10: Collapse risk components for different IMs: Seismic hazard curves for

simplified site: (a) Sa(T1) and Saavg; (b) PGV. Collapse fragility curves for (c) Sa(T1),

Sa(T1) with or SaRatio adjustment, and Saavg; (d) PGV. c deaggregation curves for (e)

Sa(T1), Sa(T1) with or SaRatio adjustment and Saavg; (f) PGV. Note the different

horizontal scales between plots in the left and right columns as well as the different

vertical scales between plots (e) and (f).

A summary of relevant collapse risk metrics is provided for each IM in Table 6.6. The

mean annual frequency of collapse (c) and the probability of collapse in 50 years (Pc,50)

are computed for each IM using Equation 2.2 and Equation 2.5, respectively. As shown

in Table 6.6 each IM produces a different estimate of the collapse risk, with Sa(T1)

producing a Pc,50 estimate of approximately 1.0% versus estimates of approximately 0.3%

for both Saavg and PGV.

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 207

Table 6.6: Collapse risk metrics for different IMs with the MRCD 137 ground motion set.

Median Collapse

IM ln IM ln IM,BA08* c [10-4] Pc,50

Intensity

Sa(T1) 1.03 g 0.39 0.68 2.03 1.01%

Sa(T1) + 1.33 g 0.39 0.68 0.88 0.44%

Sa(T1) + SaRatio 1.40 g 0.39 0.68 0.74 0.37%

Saavg 0.70 g 0.22 0.59 0.59 0.29%

PGV 160 cm/s 0.33 0.58 0.50 0.25%

*

Note the BA08 in lnIM,BA08 indicates that this is the standard deviation from the BA08 GMPMGMPE

and not the standard deviation of the collapse intensities, which is denoted as lnIM.

One would like to know which IM gives the best estimate of the collapse risk. As

discussed in Section 2.3 the ground motions a structure will experience in its lifetime are

unknown, but one can estimate c using information about the types and frequencies of

seismic events that are likely to occur at the site and information about how the structure

is likely to respond to those events (i.e., whether or not they produce collapse). This is

accomplished as shown in Equation 2.4. The following discussion uses properties of the

IMs (e.g., efficiency, sufficiency, etc.) to argue why one IM gives a better estimate of c

than another.

Starting with Sa(T1), this IM is clearly not sufficient with respect to the spectral shape of

the ground motions used as discussed in Section 5.6. Given that Sa(T1) only considers a

single spectral value another step must be included to account for spectral shape when

using this IM to assess the collapse risk of structure. As discussed in Section 5.7, this can

be accomplished, for example, by using Sa(T1) as part of a vector IM with some measure

of spectral shape such as or SaRatio, carefully selecting records with regard to spectral

shape, or adjusting the results obtained with Sa(T1) when spectral shape is not directly

considered in record selection. Two approaches are considered here for modifying the

collapse risk estimate produced by Sa(T1): the adjustment discussed by Haselton et al.

(2011) and the SaRatio adjustment, which is discussed in Section 5.7 and is an adaptation

of the method discussed by Haselton et al.

As shown by several recent research studies (e.g., Baker and Cornell 2005b; Zareian and

Krawinkler 2007a; Haselton et al. 2011) records with positive values generally tend to

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 208

produce smaller structural responses (e.g., smaller interstory drift ratios) than records

with neutral or negative values for a given value of Sa(T1). With the exception of some

regions in eastern North America, the target values obtained from PSHA

deaggregations are almost universally positive in active seismic regions at long return

periods of engineering interest (Burks and Baker 2012). This means that for most sites

there is a strong likelihood of overestimating the collapse risk when using Sa(T1) as the

IM unless the ground motions are selected considering or some adjustment (i.e., a

reduction) is made to the results. This has been demonstrated by several researchers

including Baker and Cornell (2006a), Haselton and Deierlein (2007, Chapter 6) and

Haselton et al. (2011).

The MRCD 137 ground motion set used for the case study is approximately neutral (the

mean value of the ground motions is (T1) = 0.13). A PSHA deaggregation by

magnitude and at Sa(T1) = 0.72 g is shown in Figure 6.11 and is used to determine the

target value. This intensity level is chosen because it is at the peak of the c

deaggregation (Figure 6.10(e)), meaning it has the most significant contribution to the

collapse risk. Note that this intensity is very close to the 2/50 hazard level, which is

associated with Sa(T1) = 0.68 g. The PSHA deaggregation for the site presented in Figure

6.11 shows that a Mw = 6.7 event, which is associated with (T1) = 1.8, has the greatest

contribution to the seismic hazard at this intensity level. Given that the mean value of

the ground motion set ((T1) = 0.13) is significantly lower than the target value ((T1) =

1.8), the collapse risk computed using Sa(T1) has likely been overestimated compared to

the risk computed using ground motions with values near the target value. To estimate

the median collapse intensity that would be computed using records with values near

the target value, the adjustment discussed by Haselton et al. (2011) is used. The

regression of ln(Sa(T1)col) versus presented in Figure 5.29 shows that at the target value

of (T1) = 1.8 the expected median collapse intensity is Sa(T1)col = 1.33 g (up from 1.03 g,

see Table 6.6). Haselton et al. note that adjusting the median collapse intensity in this

manner also reduces the dispersion of the collapse intensities, and they provide an

equation for calculating this reduced dispersion. The reduction in dispersion is a function

of the slope and residuals from the regression as well as the standard deviation of the

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 209

values from the PSHA deaggregation. Haselton et al. found that the reduction in

dispersion was only on the order of 10% and had only a minor effect on the collapse risk.

For this reason they proposed simply using the dispersion calculated from the original

(i.e., unadjusted) collapse intensities.

Figure 6.11: PSHA deaggregation by magnitude with associated (T1) values for

Sa(T1) = 0.72 g, the intensity at the peak of the c deaggregation.

The -adjusted estimate of the collapse fragility curve for Sa(T1) (denoted as Sa(T1)+)

is shown in Figure 6.10(c) and is used to compute c. The resulting c deaggregation is

presented in Figure 6.10(e). The collapse risk measured by Sa(T1)+ is Pc,50 = 0.44% as

shown in Table 6.6. This is approximately a 60% reduction in Pc,50 compared to the value

calculated for Sa(T1) without considering ; however, this adjusted value of Pc,50 is still

approximately 1.5 or 1.8 times greater than the Pc,50 computed using Saavg or PGV,

respectively.

Another method of adjusting the collapse fragility curve obtained using Sa(T1) as the IM

is to use the spectral shape parameter SaRatio. This approach is described in Section

5.7.2.1. The target value of SaRatio is estimated to be 2.06, which is obtained from a

conditional mean spectrum (CMS) (see Baker and Cornell 2006a; Lin et al. 2013b) of the

event with the largest contribution to the seismic hazard as determined by Figure 6.11.

The CMS is computed using the BA08 GMPE with the following parameter values: Mw =

6.7, Rjb = 10 km, (T1) = 1.8, Vs30 = 285 m/s, and an unspecified fault type. Correlation

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 210

coefficients between spectral values at different periods are computed using the equations

developed by Baker and Jayaram (2008). Following the approach described in Section

5.7.2.1 the modified median collapse intensity is computed from the regression between

ln(Sa(T1)col) and ln(SaRatio) shown in Figure 5.28 using the target value of SaRatio. This

results in a modified median collapse intensity of Sa(T1)col = 1.40 g (up from 1.03 g, see

Table 6.6).

The SaRatio-adjusted estimate of the collapse fragility curve for Sa(T1) (denoted as

Sa(T1)+SaRatio) is shown in Figure 6.10(c) and is used to compute c. The resulting c

deaggregation is presented in Figure 6.10(e). The collapse risk measured by

Sa(T1)+SaRatio is Pc,50 = 0.37% as shown in Table 6.6. This is approximately a 60%

reduction in Pc,50 compared to the value calculated for Sa(T1) without considering

SaRatio; however, although lower than the value computed with the -adjusted Sa(T1),

this SaRatio-adjusted value of Pc,50 is still approximately 1.3 or 1.5 times greater than the

Pc,50 computed using Saavg or PGV, respectively.

It is believed that a primary reason why Sa(T1) (with or without the spectral shape

adjustments) produces a higher estimate of the collapse risk is because it is less correlated

with collapse intensities, and therefore it is less efficient than either Saavg or PGV. The

efficiencies of the IMs with respect to the median collapse intensity are compared in

Table 6.6, and it is shown that Sa(T1) is the least efficient IM because it has the largest

value of lnIM. Furthermore, Sa(T1) is also associated with the largest variability from the

GMPE perspective (i.e., the variability in the value of the IM for a given magnitude and

distance), which also contributes to the higher collapse risk estimates for this IM and will

be discussed later. Saavg, on the other hand, combines the smallest dispersion in the

collapse intensities with a smaller variability in the IM from the GMPE perspective,

which as discussed later leads to more reliable estimate of the collapse risk.

For a given median collapse intensity, the larger the dispersion the larger the values of

P(C|IM) in the lower half of the collapse fragility curve. As discussed in Sections 3.5 and

3.6, when the IM is Sa(T1) the most significant contributions to the collapse risk typically

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 211

come from intensities in the lower half of the collapse fragility curve. This is the case for

this particular case study as shown by the c deaggregation in Figure 6.10(e), which is

repeated in Figure 6.12(e), and means that the increased dispersion seen for Sa(T1) is an

important reason why Sa(T1) produces a larger collapse risk estimate than the other IMs.

For example, consider what would happen if Sa(T1) were as efficient as Saavg. Figure

6.12(c) illustrates the effect on the collapse fragility curve if lnSa(T1) = 0.22, the value of

lnSaAvg, rather than lnSa(T1) = 0.39, the value observed in the case study: the reduced

dispersion results in significantly lower values of P(C|IM) for values less than the median

collapse intensity, especially for intensities between 0.5 g and 1.0 g. The impact on the

collapse risk estimate is evident when examining the c deaggregation curve shown in

Figure 6.12(e) as the reduced dispersion significantly decreases the collapse risk

contribution from intensities less than 1.0 g, which are responsible for the majority of the

collapse risk observed in the case study. The collapse risk computed using the reduced

dispersion of lnSa(T1) = 0.22 is Pc,50 = 0.61%, which is a significant reduction from the

original value of Pc,50 = 1.01% (Table 6.6). This example is provided merely to illustrate

that the efficiency of an IM affects the collapse risk estimate and that for Sa(T1) an

increase in the efficiency (which corresponds to a decrease in lnSa(T1)) leads to a

reduction in the collapse risk estimate in most cases of engineering interest 2.

2

Note that in some cases it is possible for an increase in the efficiency of an IM (a decrease in lnIM) to lead

to an increase in the collapse risk. This would usually occur in a situation where c is dominated by

intensities in the upper half of the collapse fragility curve because decreasing lnIM while holding the

median constant increases P(C|IM) for the upper half of the fragility curve. Note that such a situation is,

however, rare in engineering practice, at least when the IM is Sa(T1). For example, for the case study

discussed in this section if the median collapse intensity were Sa(T1) = 0.1 g, a value of lnSa(T1) = 0.4 would

produce a slightly smaller value of Pc,50 than if lnSa(T1) = 0.2 (48.2% versus 49.0%). Given the high

probabilities of collapse, hopefully such a structure would not be built.

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 212

Figure 6.12: Collapse risk components for Sa(T1) illustrating the effects of improved

efficiency and improved GMPE: Seismic hazard curves for simplified site in (a) and (b);

Collapse fragility curves in (c) and (d); c deaggregation curves in (e) and (f). Plots (a),

(c) and (e) illustrate the effect of improved efficiency while plots (b), (d) and (f) illustrate

the effect of improved GMPE prediction.

Another important factor that contributes to the typically greater collapse risk estimates

given by Sa(T1) is related to the seismic hazard. The expected value and standard

deviation (lnIM,GMPE) of an IM are given by a GMPE and are used to calculate the

probability of exceeding a given intensity level as shown in Equation 6.11. This

information is then used to compute the seismic hazard curve as shown in Equation 6.7.

The standard deviations indicate how well the IM values observed from recorded ground

motions match the GMPEs prediction of the expected value and as such indicate, loosely

speaking, how easy or difficult it is to predict the value of the IM. As noted by Bradley et

al. (2010b), a large uncertainty in the GMPE will significantly increase the hazard

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 213

design.

The BA08 GMPE is used for all IMs considered in this case study and produces the

standard deviations lnIM,BA08 shown in Table 6.6 assuming an unspecified fault type.

Perhaps it is not surprising that Saavg has a smaller value of lnIM,BA08 than Sa(T1) as one

might expect that the process of averaging spectral ordinates over a range of periods

reduces extreme values. The mathematical basis for why lnSaAvg,BA08 is smaller than

lnSa(T1),BA08 can be understood by examining the terms in Equation 6.10, which shows that

lnSaAvg,BA08 is a function of the lnSa(T),BA08 values for periods used to compute Saavg and

the correlation coefficients for spectral values at different periods. Figure 6.13(a) shows

the former while Figure 6.13(b) shows the latter. For the case study Saavg is computed

between periods of 0.27 s and 3.99 s (which is the period range between 0.2T1 and 3T1,

where T1 = 1.33 s), which means this period range has over twice as many periods greater

than T1 than less than T1. Although periods greater than T1 have greater values of

lnSa(T),BA08 compared to the value at T1 as seen in Figure 6.13(a), the spectral values are

not perfectly correlated as seen in Figure 6.13(b). The reduction in the correlation of

spectral ordinates as one departs from T1 then, in practically all cases, leads to a reduction

in lnSaAvg,BA08 compared to the value of lnSa(T1),BA08.

Figure 6.13: Components influencing the value of lnSaAvg,BA08: (a) values of lnSa(T),BA08;

and (b) contour of correlation coefficients between spectral values at different periods.

To test the impact of the relatively higher value of lnSa(T1),BA08 compared to the other IMs,

the hazard curve for Sa(T1) is recomputed using a reduced standard deviation of

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 214

lnSa(T1),BA08 = 0.58, which is comparable to the value of lnIM,BA08 for Saavg and PGV, and

the collapse risk is recalculated. Figure 6.12(b) compares the original hazard curve for

Sa(T1), which is based on lnSa(T1),BA08 = 0.68, to the hazard curve computed using the

reduced standard deviation of lnSa(T1),BA08 = 0.58. Reducing the standard deviation of the

GMPE leads to a reduction in the seismic hazard, especially as the level of intensity

increases. Figure 6.12(f) compares the c deaggregation curves obtained using the

different hazard curves in Figure 6.12(b) and shows that the reduction in collapse risk

contribution is most significant for intensities between approximately 0.5 g and 1.5 g.

Though significant differences exist in the hazard curves for intensities greater than 1.5 g,

the likelihood of observing these larger intensities is so small compared to that of the

smaller intensities (i.e., the slope of the seismic hazard curve is relatively small) that the

larger intensities have relatively little impact on the collapse risk. The collapse risk

computed using the reduced GMPE standard deviation of lnSa(T1),BA08 = 0.58 is Pc,50 =

0.56%, which is a significant reduction from the original value of Pc,50 = 1.01% (Table

6.6) and demonstrates that the larger value of lnIM,BA08 for Sa(T1) relative to the other IMs

also plays a role in why Sa(T1) produces higher collapse risk estimates than the other

IMs.

As shown in Table 6.6 the collapse risk estimates given by Saavg and PGV are very

similar, with Saavg estimating c and Pc,50 values approximately 15% greater (in relative

terms) than the PGV estimates. Saavg is significantly more efficient than PGV as

illustrated by the 33% reduction in dispersion when comparing lnSaAvg to lnPGV (i.e., lnIM

= 0.22 versus 0.33). As previously discussed, with all else being equal one would

generally expect that the more efficient IM would produce smaller estimates of the

collapse risk because of the reduced uncertainty (reduced dispersion) in the collapse

intensities. However, this is not the case here as PGV (the less efficient IM) leads to

smaller collapse risk estimates than Saavg (the more efficient IM). This is because, even

though the collapse intensities measured by PGV have more variability about the median

than those measured by Saavg, once the discrete P(C|IM) values are multiplied by the

difference in the seismic hazard between the IM levels the terms (technically, the sum of

these terms) are smaller for PGV than Saavg. This is illustrated in Figure 6.14, which

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 215

shows P(C|IM) plotted as a function of the mean annual frequency of exceedance of the

IM level, IM, for both Saavg and PGV. As seen in Figure 6.14, for mean annual

frequencies smaller than 10-4 (which are typically of interest for collapse assessment) the

P(C|IM) at a given value of IM is smaller for PGV than Saavg

Figure 6.14: The probability of collapse conditioned on intensity level, P(C|IM), plotted

as a function of IM, the mean annual frequency of exceedance of the IM level for Saavg

and PGV.

Previous results showed that both Saavg and PGV gave relatively comparable estimates of

the collapse risk. To test the sensitivity of this observation to the particular ground

motions used, the collapse fragility curve was recomputed using different sets of ground

motions and the collapse risk estimates were calculated for each set. Ideally, a good IM

will be more robust by being less sensitive to the ground motion set, that is, a good IM

will be one that gives relatively stable estimates of the collapse fragility and collapse risk

no matter what ground motions are used (i.e., smaller variability in the various estimates

computed with different ground motion sets) because it is hoped that the IM is sufficient

with respect to magnitude, distance, and other properties of the ground motions that

affect the structural response.

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 216

The first ground motion set considered was the expanded Large Magnitude-Short

Distance set compiled and used by Medina and Krawinkler (2003, Table 3.6) and is

referred to as LMSR-N. This set consists of 40 recordings where each record is from a

separate station (i.e., one random horizontal component is used from each station) from

events with magnitudes of Mw = 6.53 6.93 and distances of Rjb = 0.0 km 37.7 km.

Additional details about the records in this set are provided by Medina and Krawinkler

(2003, Section 3.3).

The Set One ground motions are compiled and documented by Haselton and Deierlein

(2007, Table 3-7). Set One consists of 39 pairs of recordings, each with two horizontal

components, from events with magnitudes of Mw = 6.50 7.62 and distances of Rjb =

0.9 km 74.2 km. Additional details about the records in this set are provided by

Haselton and Deierlein (2007, Appendix 3B).

The Set #1A, FN/FP ground motions were compiled and used by Baker et al. (Baker et

al. 2011). Unlike the previous ground motion sets, these ground motions were selected

with respect to spectral shape. For this ground motion set, records were selected so that

the spectral ordinates between periods of 0 and 5 s matched the means and standard

deviations predicted by the BA08 GMPE for a magnitude 7 strike-slip earthquake at a

distance of 10 km from a site with an average shear wave velocity of Vs30 = 250 m/s.

Forty recordings, each with two horizontal components, were selected and the resulting

range of magnitudes and distances are Mw = 6.06 7.90 and Rjb = 0 km 40.4 km. All

records were rotated to the fault-normal and fault-parallel (FN/FP) components.

Additional details on this ground motion set are provided by Baker et al. (2011, Section

3.1). For comparison purposes the collapse risk is also evaluated using the same ground

motions but this time they are not rotated to FN/FP components (i.e., they are the

orientations provided by the PEER NGA database (Chiou et al. 2008)). This record set is

denoted Set #1A, unrotated.

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 217

The final ground motion are selected to match a conditional spectrum (CS) and are

denoted as the CS, (T1) = 1.7 and CS, (T1) = 1.8 sets, respectively. As discussed by

Lin et al. (2013a; 2013b), a CS describes the full distribution of the spectrum at all

periods (i.e., it captures both the expected spectral values and the variability of those

values) and is constructed using the properties of a main causal or target event (e.g.,

magnitude, distance, , fault type, etc.) with a GMPE or multiple causal events with

multiple GMPEs. Only a single target event and GMPE are used for the CS sets

constructed here. The target event is obtained from a PSHA deaggregation at Sa(T1) =

0.68 g, which corresponds to the 2/50 hazard level. This hazard level is chosen as it is

expected to have a significant contribution to the collapse risk. The magnitude with the

largest contribution to the hazard is Mw = 6.7, which corresponds to (T1) = 1.7. The CS is

constructed using these Mw and (T1) values with the other site parameters (i.e., Rjb = 10

km, Vs30 = 285 m/s, and an unspecified fault type) and the BA08 GMPE. Records are

selected to match the CS using publicly available software described by Jayaram et al.

(2011). Forty recordings, each with two horizontal components, are selected from the

PEER NGA database to match this CS and are denoted as the CS, (T1) = 1.7 set. A

CS, (T1) = 1.8 set is also constructed in the same manner with the same parameter

values except that the (T1) value is 1.8. This was done to be consistent with the target

(T1) value of the MRCD 137 set as shown in Figure 6.11 and to be closer to the target

(T1) values of other ground motion sets, which are discussed later. Additional

information about the CS, (T1) = 1.7 and CS, (T1) = 1.8 sets including the NGA

identification numbers is provided in Appendix C.

It should be noted that although the record selection methodology and the values of many

target parameters (e.g., magnitude, distance, etc.) are similar for the Set #1A and the CS

sets, there is an important difference between these two sets: the CS sets were

conditioned on non-zero values of (T1), which affects the target spectrum due to

correlations between values at different periods. The positive (T1) values used to

construct the target spectra for the CS sets imply that these spectra typically have a peak

at or near T1. In contrast, the target spectrum used to select the Set #1A ground motions is

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 218

based on the median prediction from the GMPE, which implies that the values are zero

for all periods so the spectral shape characteristics of the two sets are very different.

As discussed in Chapter 5, the spectral shapes of records can significantly affect the

structural response, especially at large levels of nonlinearity. Comparisons of the

(geometric) mean spectrum of each ground motion set are presented in Figure 6.15,

where all records are scaled to a common value of Sa(T1) in Figure 6.15(a), a common

value of Saavg in Figure 6.15(b), and a common value of PGV in Figure 6.15(c). To

compute the geometric mean spectrum of a given record set for a given IM, all records as

scaled to the same IM value and the geometric mean spectral value is computed at all

periods. Figure 6.15 shows that the overall (i.e., mean) relative frequency content differs

among ground motion sets. For example, the MRCD 137 and both Set #1A ground

motion sets generally have higher spectral ordinates compared to the other ground motion

sets between periods of 3 s and 4 s while the LMSR-N and Set One sets generally have

higher spectral ordinates compared to the other ground motion sets at short periods,

regardless of which IM is used to scale the records. The CS sets exhibit peaked spectra

near T1 and tend to have higher spectral ordinates near T1 compared to the other ground

motion sets when scaled to a common value of Saavg or PGV.

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 219

Figure 6.15: Geometric mean spectrum of different ground motion sets scaled to a

common value of (a) Sa(T1); (b) Saavg; and (c) PGV. Note the vertical line in (a) is drawn

at T1 = 1.33 s and the horizontal line in (b) denotes the common value of Saavg over the

period range between 0.2T1 and 3T1.

The collapse risk computed by each IM for the different ground motion sets are

summarized in Figure 6.16. The -adjusted and SaRatio-adjusted collapse risk results for

Sa(T1) are also presented in Figure 6.16 and are denoted as Sa(T1)+ and

Sa(T1)+SaRatio, respectively. A PSHA deaggregation at the intensity associated with

the peak of the c deaggregation is used to determine the target and SaRatio values

using the procedures previously described. This intensity varies between ground motion

sets (from Sa(T1) = 0.70 g to 0.87 g), which results in the target values of these

parameters varying between the ground motion sets (from (T1) = 1.8 to 2.1 and from

SaRatio = 2.1 to 2.2). All PSHA deaggregations show that the magnitude with the

greatest contribution to the seismic hazard is Mw = 6.7.

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 220

Figure 6.16(a) presents the median collapse intensities for each IM. The median collapse

intensities for the IMs associated with spectral accelerations are reported in units of g

while the values for PGV are reported in cm/s. As previously discussed, it is desirable

that the median collapse intensity of a given IM remain relatively stable for different

ground motion sets because this indicates that the results are likely not affected by

properties of the ground motions such as magnitude, distance, , or other properties that

differ between the ground motion sets, and therefore the results are more reliable as they

are less affected by decisions made when selecting ground motions. Figure 6.16(a) shows

that the median collapse intensities measured by Saavg are very robust and relatively

stable as they only vary between Saavg = 0.70 g and 0.77 g (a 5% variation with respect to

the value in the middle of this range of intensities). The median collapse intensities

measured by Sa(T1)+, on the other hand, vary considerably more as the values range

from Sa(T1) = 1.33 g to 1.72 g (a 13% variation with respect to the value in the middle of

this range of intensities).

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 221

Figure 6.16: Summary of collapse risk results for different IMs and different ground

motion sets: (a) median collapse intensity; (b) standard deviation of collapse intensities,

lnIM; (c) mean annual frequency of collapse, c, and probability of collapse in 50 years,

Pc,50. Note in plot (a) the spectral acceleration-based IMs to the left of the dashed vertical

line are in units of g while PGV, which is to the right of the dashed vertical line, is in

units of cm/s.

The dispersions (lnIM) on the median collapse intensity are presented in Figure 6.16(b)

and show that for all ground motion sets Saavg is the most efficient IM, with an average

dispersion value of lnSaAvg = 0.25. PGV has an average dispersion value of lnPGV = 0.33,

and Sa(T1) is the least efficient IM with an average dispersion value of lnSa(T1) = 0.39.

Note that the dispersion of collapse intensities computed using the Sa(T1)+ or

Sa(T1)+SaRatio methods were not directly computed as the reduction in dispersion

compared to Sa(T1) alone is expected to be small and were instead taken as equal to the

dispersion of collapse intensities based on Sa(T1) alone. As previously discussed the

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 222

efficiency of an IM affects the collapse risk results, and generally for a given IM an

increase in efficiency (i.e., a decrease in dispersion) leads to a reduced collapse risk

estimate. This occurs because a decrease in dispersion reduces the probabilities of

collapse at intensities less than the median, which typically contribute most significantly

to c. It was also previously discussed that just because one IM is more efficient than

another does not necessarily mean it will produce a lower collapse risk estimate. This is

because the mean annual frequencies of different IMs differ, and the collapse fragility

needs to be combined with the seismic hazard as done when computing c to determine

the collapse risk.

The values of c and Pc,50 for each IM are presented in Figure 6.16(c). Discussion herein

will focus on the Pc,50 values as they are simply a transform of the c values as shown by

Equation 2.5. Figure 6.16(c) shows that collapse risk estimates are most stable for Saavg,

which has Pc,50 values ranging from 0.22% to 0.33% (a 20% variation with respect to the

value in the middle of this range). This indicates that compared to the other IMs the

collapse risk estimated using Saavg is more robust and relatively insensitive to the

particular set of ground motions used, which is a very desirable property. This relatively

narrow range of collapse risk estimates is obtained using records sets with very different

characteristics and yet they lead to very similar collapse risk estimates. For example

Figure 6.15(b) shows that when scaled to the same Saavg value records in the MRCD 137

set have, on average, significantly larger spectral ordinates than the LMSR-N set between

periods of 3 s and 4 s while between periods of 0 and 1 s the trend is reversed. Despite

differences in relative frequency content that Saavg does not capture, the collapse risk

estimates using these two sets are very similar as the Pc,50 values are 0.29% and 0.23%

for the MRCD 137 and LMSR-N sets, respectively.

Sa(T1)+ produces collapse risk estimates ranging from Pc,50 = 0.14% to 0.44% (a

variation of approximately 50% with respect to the value in the middle of this range),

which indicates that even after correcting for the different values between the ground

motion sets the collapse risk computed by this IM is still sensitive to the records used in

the evaluation. The collapse risk estimates obtained using Sa(T1)+SaRatio show less

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 223

sensitivity to the ground motion sets than those obtained using Sa(T1)+, with estimates

of the former ranging from Pc,50 = 0.22% to 0.40% (a variation of approximately 30%

with respect to the value in the middle of this range). This is due to less variation in the

median collapse intensity estimates as this is the only parameter affecting the collapse

risk estimate that differs between the two IMs. The reduced variation in the median

collapse intensity estimates is thought to be the result of significantly greater correlation

of the Sa(T1)col values with SaRatio as opposed to , which was demonstrated in

Section 5.6.

The collapse risk estimates using PGV vary from Pc,50 = 0.14% to 0.52%, which is larger

than the range using Sa(T1)+, and indicate that this IM is also sensitive to the records

used. Knowing the value of PGV does not provide information about the response

spectrum or its shape, which influences structural response, so it is not surprising that the

collapse risk estimates obtained with different ground motions vary so widely for PGV.

For example a comparison of the mean response spectra for the different ground motion

sets scaled to the same PGV in Figure 6.15(c) with the collapse risk estimates in Figure

6.16(c) shows that the CS sets have significantly larger spectral ordinates near T1 and

produce higher collapse risk estimates than the other sets.

The results discussed here suggest that Saavg is a good IM to use for collapse risk

assessment as compared to the other IMs examined it is a better (more robust and more

efficient) predictor of structural response, is predicted with less or comparable dispersion

from a GMPE perspective, and produces stable collapse risk estimates using different

ground motion sets. The latter is attributed to its sufficiency with respect to magnitude,

distance, , and other ground motion properties that can affect the structural response.

6.5 Summary

This chapter evaluated the performance of different IMs as it related to predicting the

collapse risk of a structure. Properties of a good IM include efficiency (a measure of the

amount of uncertainty in the predicted structural response), sufficiency (that the structural

response is not affected by properties of the ground motion not measured by the IM), and

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 224

the ability to compute hazard information about the IM as well as the relative ease with

which the information is obtained. Related to efficiency and sufficiency, the ability of the

IM to produce reliable structural response estimates and robust risk estimates that are not

sensitive to the ground motions used in analysis is also desirable.

Sa(T1) has commonly been used as an IM for predicting nonlinear structural response

including collapse because, unlike IMs such as PGA or PGV, it provides information

about how the ground motion affects the structure (specifically, an elastic SDOF system).

A review of past research on IMs showed that including information about either the

spectral shape of the ground motion indirectly through a parameter like or, even better,

directly by incorporating information about the spectral ordinates at periods other than or

in addition to the fundamental period improved response predictions compared to using

Sa(T1) alone.

Chapter 5 investigated how and why the spectral shape of a record affects the structural

response, and it was seen that spectral acceleration averaged over a period range (Saavg)

could give a good prediction of which records were more damaging when scaled to the

same value of Sa(T1). Saavg was used as an IM in this chapter and was compared to other

IMs. Saavg, which is calculated as the geometric mean of spectral acceleration over a

period range, was shown to be significantly more efficient than Sa(T1) at predicting the

collapse intensity of a ground motion. This was attributed to several factors, including:

(1) that Sa(T1) does not consider the (elastic) response at other periods which might be

important in estimating nonlinear and MDOF structural response; (2) that a change in the

displacement and velocity of the system when it is hit by significant ground motion

pulses can significantly alter the peak elastic response, and even though Saavg is also

based on elastic ordinates, the influence of the initial conditions at the arrival of

significant pulses is minimized by averaging the response over a range of periods; and (3)

by taking an average spectral value over a range of periods, Saavg accounts directly for the

spectral shape and indirectly for the underlying pulses in the ground motion that produce

the spectral shape and cause damage.

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 225

The sufficiency of Saavg was evaluated with respect to magnitude, distance, and spectral

shapes measures and SaRatio using case studies of nearly 700 structures including

generic MRF, generic shear wall, and RC MRF structures. It was shown that Saavg is

generally sufficient with respect to all these measures, especially distance. A particular

subset of structures (RC MRF structures with T1 1.16 s, for which the ground motions

span a particularly wide range of magnitudes (Mw from 6.50 to 7.62)) was identified for

which Saavg was not sufficient with respect to magnitude. Considering all the RC MRF

structures, however, Saavg was generally significantly more efficient with respect to

magnitude than Sa(T1). Whereas virtually none of the 650+ structures were sufficient

with respect to or SaRatio when the IM was Sa(T1), the majority of structures were

sufficient with respect to these spectral shape measures when the IM was Saavg, especially

if the period range used to compute Saavg resulted in optimum or near optimum efficiency

levels.

Obtaining a seismic hazard curve for Saavg was discussed, and it was demonstrated how

one could be obtained using existing GMPEs that predict spectral acceleration values and

readily available equations to estimate the correlation between spectral ordinates at

different periods. It was noted that though seismic hazard curves in terms of Sa(T1) are

relatively widely available, this is not the case for hazard curves in terms of Saavg and is a

significant factor preventing the widespread use of the IM in practice.

This chapter concluded by evaluating the performance of different IMs in predicting the

collapse risk of a structure. Sa(T1), Saavg, and PGV were evaluated using a case study

structure with seven different ground motion sets. The collapse risk results computed

using Sa(T1) varied noticeably between the ground motion sets (i.e., a probability of

collapse in 50 years from Pc,50 = 0.14% to 0.44% or from Pc,50 = 0.22% to 0.40%,

depending whether or SaRatio was used to adjust the results for spectral shape). This

variance indicates that Sa(T1) is not completely sufficient because properties of the

ground motions other than Sa(T1) affected the structural response and lead to collapse

risk estimates which can be very sensitive to ground motion selection. A similar

Chapter 6: Intensity Measures for Predicting Collapse 226

conclusion was drawn for PGV as it also produced a relatively large range of collapse

risk estimates for the different ground motion sets (from Pc,50 = 0.14% to 0.52%).

Based on the case study results, Saavg was shown to have the best performance as

compared to the other IMs it was a better (more efficient and more robust) predictor of

structural response, was predicted with less or comparable dispersion from a GMPE

perspective, and produced relatively stable collapse risk estimates using different ground

motion sets. The latter is attributed to its sufficiency with respect to magnitude, distance,

, and other ground motion properties that can affect the structural response. This is

promising and suggests that the careful record selection and/or modification of structural

response results required to obtain a good estimate of the collapse risk when using Sa(T1)

as the IM may not be required if Saavg is the IM. Future work considering additional

structures will be necessary to confirm this.

Chapter 7

for Various Structures for Maximum Efficiency

7.1 Overview

This chapter focuses exclusively on Saavg and explores how the range, number, and

spacing (i.e., arithmetic versus logarithmic) of periods used to compute Saavg influences

the effectiveness of this intensity measure (IM). Particular focus is given to the impact

these variables have on the efficiency of the IM, though a discussion of their impact on

collapse risk assessment estimates is also included.

The period ranges that maximize the efficiency of Saavg are investigated for a variety of

structures including generic SDOF systems, generic moment-resisting frame (MRF)

systems, generic shear wall systems, and reinforced concrete (RC) MRF systems.

Recommendations about the optimum period ranges are provided based on structural

properties. Effects of the number and spacing of periods are also investigated.

The issue of what period range to use when computing Saavg has been studied by a

number of researchers. Let Saavg(a, b) denote the value of Saavg computed using a period

range between aT1 and bT1, where a and b are non-negative constants such that a b

and T1 is the fundamental period of the structure. Bianchini (2008) and Bianchini et al.

(2009) studied the displacement response of SDOF and MDOF systems with ductility

levels () ranging from = 1 to 6 using Saavg as the IM. The authors found that the

minimum dispersion in the results was produced using b values of approximately 2 (i.e.,

using twice the value of T1 as the upper limit of the period range) for low ductility levels

and approximately 3 for high ductility levels ( 4). They found that a = 1 was

appropriate for SDOF systems and an a value of approximately 0.25 was best for MDOF

systems with significant contributions from higher modes.

227

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 228

Bianchini (2008) also examined the how the period spacing and number of periods used

to compute Saavg affected the IMs efficiency. He found that using 100 periods to

compute Saavg did not significantly affect the results compared to using 10 periods and

used this as the basis for recommending that 10 periods be used to compute Saavg.

Bianchini also found that using logarithmically spaced periods to compute Saavg generally

resulted in lower dispersions compared to using arithmetically spaced periods given that

10 periods were used. He also found that the period spacing had a slight effect on the

optimum b value.

Tsantaki et al. (2012) studied the collapse of non-degrading bilinear SDOF systems

vulnerable to P- effects. The periods of the SDOFs ranged from T1 = 0.1 s to 5.0 s, and

various hysteretic behaviors and effective post-yield stiffness values were considered.

Instead of characterizing the period range in terms of a and b, the authors looked at the

absolute width of the period range (i.e., the value of T1(b-a)). Using a = 1, the authors

found that the optimum width of the period range (that which produced the minimum

dispersion in the collapse intensities) was

0.4, 0.5s T1 < 0.7 s

T1 (b a ) = (7.1)

0.8, 0.7 s T1 < 1.5s

1.2, 1.5s T1 < 5.0 s

The authors found that Saavg did not reduce the dispersion compared to Sa(T1) for systems

with T1 = 0.1 s. In a related study using the same SDOFs but focusing on systems with

bilinear hysteretic behavior, Tsantaki and Adam (2013) recommend using b = 1.6 for

systems with T1 0.15 s and b = 10.67T1 when T1 0.15 s, where a = 1 in all cases.

They found that the optimum b value was not very sensitive to the damping ratio or the

effective post-elastic stiffness.

Bojrquez and Iervolino (2011) also studied the optimum period range for Saavg by using

a vector IM consisting of Sa(T1) and the ratio of Saavg to Sa(T1). Using a = 1, they found

using a b value of approximately 2 to 2.5 provided the lowest dispersion in maximum

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 229

interstory drift ratios based on case studies of a 5-story RC MRF structure subjected to

both ordinary and pulse-like ground motion sets and an 8-story steel MRF structure

subjected to narrow-band ground motions.

7.3 Effect of period spacing and number of periods on the value of Saavg

This section provides an illustrative example of how the period spacing scheme

(specifically arithmetic versus logarithmic) and number of periods used within a given

period range affect the value of Saavg. This example is used to motivate subsequent

sections that examine how the spacing and number of periods affects the dispersion on

the collapse intensities measured by Saavg and the period range that produces the overall

minimum dispersion for a given structure. Following the notation used in the previous

section, let Saavg(a, b) denote the value of Saavg computed using a period range between

aT1 and bT1, where a and b are non-negative constants such that a b and T1 is the

fundamental period of the structure.

To illustrate how the spacing and number of periods used affects the value of Saavg, a

ground motion from the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake is used as an example. Figure

7.1 shows the pseudo-acceleration spectrum the ground motion. Markers on the spectrum

indicate the periods used to compute Saavg(0.2, 3) for T1 = 1.33 s when either 10 or 100

periods are considered. The periods in Figure 7.1(a) are arithmetically (i.e., uniformly)

spaced within the period range while the periods in Figure 7.1(b) are spaced

logarithmically within the period range. Horizontal lines in Figure 7.1 indicate the value

of Saavg(0.2, 3) computed using the different methods.

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 230

Figure 7.1: Effect of period spacing scheme and number of periods used to compute

Saavg(0.2, 3) for T1 = 1.33 s: (a) arithmetic spacing; (b) logarithmic spacing.

As indicated in Figure 7.1, logarithmic spacing samples more heavily from the lower half

of the period range, and the value of Saavg computed with logarithmic spacing tends to be

higher than the value computed with arithmetic spacing because, outside of the short

period range, spectral acceleration values tend to decrease with increasing period. The

relative difference between the values of Saavg computed using arithmetic versus

logarithmic spacing depends on the particular ground motion and period range of interest.

For the ground motion shown in Figure 7.1, computing Saavg using 100 periods spaced

arithmetically versus logarithmically results in Saavg(0.2, 3) = 0.72 g versus 1.24 g,

respectively, for T1 = 1.33 s. This represents the most extreme difference from the ground

motions in the MRCD 137 set, which is documented in Appendix A, as the difference for

this particular period range is approximately 0.10 g, on average, for this ground motion

set. The difference in the value of Saavg computed with 10 or 100 periods for the same

spacing scheme is generally smaller than the difference due to the spacing scheme.

Again, the ground motion in Figure 7.1 represents the most extreme difference in these

values observed for the MRCD 137 ground motion set. The value of Saavg(0.2, 3)

computed using 100 periods versus 10 periods is 0.01 g higher, on average, for

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 231

logarithmic spacing, and there is no difference, on average, for arithmetic spacing for the

MRCD 137 ground motion set. Because of potential differences in the value of Saavg

computed using different spacing schemes and numbers of periods, it is important that the

methods of computing Saavg for the hazard curve and to describe the structural response

conditioned on intensity are consistent. This is in addition to ensuring that the ground

motion orientation used to compute Saavg (e.g., single component versus geometric mean

of two horizontal components) is consistent. Baker and Cornell (2006b) study the latter

case for Sa(T1) and provide examples quantifying the error introduced into risk-based

structural assessments when using inconsistent orientation representations.

This section examines how the period range used to compute Saavg affects the efficiency

of the IM and the collapse risk results. Primary focus is on the effect of efficiency, and

this is examined using case studies of SDOF and MDOF systems, the latter of which

include generic moment-resisting frame (MRF) and shear wall structures as well as

reinforced concrete (RC) MRFs encompassing a range of periods and post-yield

behavior. The effect of the period range used to compute Saavg on the collapse risk results

is also considered using a case study structure. The impact of period spacing is also

explored here as it is shown to affect the period range that produces the maximum

efficiency. As in previous sections, Saavg(a, b) is computed using periods between aT1

and bT1. The notations a* and b* are used to denote the values of a and b, respectively,

for which Saavg(a, b) produces the minimum dispersion in the collapse intensities for a

given structure. In these studies, values of a between 0 and 1 and values of b between 1

and 10/T1 were considered (i.e., the lower limit of the period range was between 0 and T1,

and the upper limit was between T1 and 10 s). A limit of 10/T1 was placed on the b value

for practical reasons, primarily due to a general lack of ground motion prediction

equations that predict spectral values at periods longer than 10 s that permit the

computation of seismic hazard data needed for collapse (and other structural response-

related) risk assessments.

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 232

The case study of the 4-story steel MRF analyzed with the MRCD 137 ground motion set

described in Section 3.5 is used as an illustrative example of how the period range used to

compute Saavg affects the efficiency of the IM. This structure has a fundamental period of

T1 = 1.33 s. Discussions on the efficiency of Saavg(a, b) for the special case where a = b

and of how the period range affects the computed collapse risk are included in the

subsection focusing on arithmetic spacing

Figure 7.2 shows a contour plot of the dispersion (ln) on the collapse intensities

measured by Saavg(a, b) as a function of a and b when Saavg is computed using

arithmetically spaced periods. The minimum dispersion of ln = 0.22 is achieved with

Saavg(0.2, 3) (i.e., a* = 0.2 and b* = 3). Figure 7.2 shows that the efficiency of Saavg is

generally significantly more sensitive to the upper limit of the period range (the b value)

than the lower limit of the period range (the a value). This figure also demonstrates that a

reduction in dispersion is generally achieved when periods less than T1 (i.e., a < 1) are

used to compute Saavg. For example, the dispersion decreases from ln = 0.29 for

Saavg(1, 3) to ln = 0.22 for Saavg(0.2, 3). The dispersion of the collapse intensities using

Sa(T1) as the IM is ln = 0.39 and can be seen in Figure 7.2 as Sa(T1) is equivalent to

Saavg(1, 1). Figure 7.2 demonstrates that there are a wide range of periods (i.e., of

combinations of a and b) for which Saavg is more efficient than Sa(T1).

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 233

Figure 7.2: Contour plot of the dispersion (ln) on the collapse intensities measured by

Saavg(a, b) as a function of the a and b values used to compute Saavg using arithmetic

period spacing.

The contours in Figure 7.2 suggest that considering Saavg(a, b) for a > 1 when a < b will

not increase the efficiency of the IM. Here the special case of Saavg(a, b) where a = b is

considered, which is equivalent to considering Sa(aT1). The advantages of this special

case (i.e., spectral acceleration at a single period) are that the earthquake engineering

community is familiar with this type of IM and that seismic hazard data, including

probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) deaggregations, is generally available (e.g.,

USGS 2012a). Figure 7.3 shows the dispersion of collapse intensities measured by

Saavg(a, b) when a = b as a function of the a value for the case study from Section 3.5.

The minimum dispersion of ln = 0.29 is achieved when a = 1.35, which represents an

approximately 25% reduction in dispersion compared to using Sa(T1) (i.e., a = 1). A

reduction in the dispersion of collapse intensities measured by Sa(aT1) for a > 1

(compared to a = 1) is consistent with the findings of Haselton and Baker (2006), who

studied collapse using a set of 1-s SDOF systems. The authors defined collapse as the

exceedance of a ductility limit and found that the a values associated with the minimum

dispersion ranged from 1.0 to 2.9. Based on the results from all systems, the authors

recommended using an a value of approximately 2.

Vamvatsikos and Cornell (2005a, Chapter 6) also investigated using Sa(aT1) to reduce

the dispersion of collapse intensities compared to that calculated using Sa(T1). They

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 234

defined collapse as numerical non-convergence. The authors found that a > 1 did not

reduce the dispersion in collapse intensities compared to using Sa(T1) for either a 9-story

or a 20-story steel MRF structure. For the 9-story structure, which had a fundamental

period of T1 = 2.4 s, the authors found that periods other than T1 (i.e., a values other than

1) did not result in a significant reduction in dispersion compared to that found using

Sa(T1). For the 20-story structure, which had a fundamental period of T1 = 4.0 s, the

authors found that the minimum dispersion in collapse intensities occurred at an a value

of approximately 0.6, which reduced the dispersion by approximately 30% compared to

using Sa(T1). For a 5-story steel braced-frame structure, however, which had a

fundamental period of T1 = 1.8 s, the authors found that the minimum dispersion in

collapse intensities occurred at an a value of approximately 1.2, which reduced the

dispersion by approximately 30% compared to using Sa(T1). Vamvatsikos and Cornell

concluded that using an a value greater than 1 could reduce the dispersion in collapse

intensities for structures with insignificant contributions from higher modes but that for

other types of structures the values of a that resulted in decreased dispersion could be

difficult to identify a priori.

period spacing for the special case of a = b, which is equivalent to Sa(aT1), as a function

of a.

Though Figure 7.3 shows that the reduction in dispersion using Sa(aT1) for a > 1

(compared to a = 1) can be significant, Figure 7.2 shows that there are many periods

ranges for which Saavg(a, b) produces smaller dispersions than ln = 0.29, the minimum

dispersion found for Sa(aT1). Though not shown, evaluation of using a single

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 235

elongated period as the IM was repeated using the six other ground motion sets from

Section 6.4, and it was found that Sa(aT1) could generally reduce the dispersion in

collapse intensities by approximately 20% compared to Sa(T1) and that the a value

associated with the minimum dispersion was typically on the order of 1.3. Given that

Saavg(a, b) for a < b can typically reduce the dispersion more than a = b, the remainder of

this chapter focuses on the former case.

The dispersion of the collapse intensities is not the only quantity relevant to the collapse

risk that is affected by the period range used to compute Saavg: the median collapse

intensity and the seismic hazard curve also vary as a function of the period range.

Changes in the seismic hazard curve are caused by changes in both the expected value

and the dispersion of Saavg predicted by the ground motion prediction equation (GMPE).

To investigate how sensitive the collapse risk estimates are to the period range used to

compute Saavg, the collapse risk assessment case study described in Section 6.4 is

repeated using the MRCD 137 ground motion set. Figure 7.4 shows contours of the

collapse risk estimates given by Saavg(a, b) as a function of the a and b values used to

compute Saavg. The mean annual frequency of collapse (c) in units of 10-4 is shown in

Figure 7.4(a), and the probability of collapse in 50 years (Pc,50) expressed a as percent is

shown in Figure 7.4(b).

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 236

the a and b values used to compute Saavg: (a) mean annual frequency of collapse, c, in

units of 10-4; (b) probability of collapse in 50 years, Pc,50, expressed as a percent.

As seen in Figure 7.4 the collapse risk estimates do vary as a function of the period range

used to compute Saavg. For example, Figure 7.4(b) shows that Pc,50 is approximately 0.3%

for Saavg(0.2, 3) and approximately 0.6% for Saavg(1, 2). Reasons for the increased

collapse risk estimate given by Saavg(1, 2) include the slight increase in the dispersion of

the collapse intensities for this period range (lnSaAvg(0.2,3) = 0.22 versus lnSaAvg(1,2) = 0.25

as seen in Figure 7.2), although it is believed a more significant reason is the increased

dispersion of the Saavg value predicted by the GMPE (lnSaAvg,GMPE). Using the 2008 Boore

Atkinson (BA08) GMPE (Boore and Atkinson 2008) and considering an unspecified fault

type, the value of lnSaAvg,BA08 is 0.59 for Saavg(0.2, 3) versus 0.67 for Saavg(1, 2). As

discussed in Section 6.4, the dispersion on the predicted value of ln(Sa(T)) (lnSa(T),GMPE)

generally increases with period for the BA08 GMPE, which was used to compute the

seismic hazard curve. These dispersions vary from a minimum of lnSa(T),BA08 = 0.57 at T =

0 s to a maximum of lnSa(T),BA08 = 0.78 at T = 7.5 s. The values of lnSa(T),GMPE are used to

compute lnSaAvg,GMPE as shown in Equation 6.10 and therefore explain differences in the

value of lnSaAvg,GMPE as a function of the period range used. The expected values of Saavg

predicted by the GMPE that are used to calculate the seismic hazard curve also change as

a function of the period range used to compute Saavg, and this can also affect the collapse

risk estimates.

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 237

It is very important to note that the sufficiency of Saavg(a, b) with respect to ground

motion parameters such as magnitude, distance, and spectral shape was not considered

for the different period ranges shown in Figure 7.4. This is noted as the sufficiency of

Saavg(a, b) can also affect the collapse risk estimate, potentially more significantly than

changes in the dispersion of the collapse intensities and the mean and standard deviation

values predicted by the GMPE as a function of the period range. As previously discussed

in Chapters 5 and 6, the ground motions used to analyze the structure can produce biased

response estimates when the IM is insufficient with respect to one or more ground motion

parameters. Section 6.3 demonstrated that Saavg(0.2, 3) was generally sufficient with

respect to magnitude, distance, and spectral shape measures, and this was reinforced by

the findings of Section 6.4 that showed the collapse risk estimate measured by

Saavg(0.2, 3) was relatively insensitive to the ground motion set used to analyze the

structure. However, Section 5.6 showed that the collapse intensities measured by

Saavg(1, 1), which is equivalent to Sa(T1), generally depend on the spectral shape of the

ground motions, and this was also reflected in the findings of Section 6.4 that showed the

collapse risk estimate measured by Sa(T1) could vary significantly depending on the

ground motion set used. For example, when the collapse risk estimate measured by

Sa(T1) was adjusted to be consistent with the expected spectral shapes of records at the

intensity with the greatest contribution to the collapse risk as described in Section 6.4 (or

when directly using records with the expected distribution of spectral values at this

intensity), the collapse risk estimate dropped significantly from Pc,50 1.0% to Pc,50

0.4% (see Figure 6.16(c)), which is much closer to the collapse risk predicted by

Saavg(0.2, 3) of Pc,50 0.3% as shown in Figure 7.4(b) (and also in Figure 6.16(c)). In

other words, this suggests that after correcting for any bias in the structural response

estimates introduced by using an insufficient IM with ground motions that are not

representative of the motions expected at the site (i.e., not consistent with the seismic

hazard), the collapse risk estimates measured by Saavg(a, b) shown in Figure 7.4 may not

exhibit as much variability with the period range used to compute Saavg as is indicated in

the figure.

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 238

This brings up the very important topic of hazard consistency in estimating the risk

associated with structural responses such as collapse. It has been recently argued (NIST

2011, Appendix A; Bradley 2012; Lin 2012, Chapter 4; Lin et al. 2013b) that the seismic

risk of a given structure at a given site is unique and theoretically not dependent on the

IM one uses in risk assessment. The sources previously cited state that when ground

motions are carefully selected to be consistent with the seismic hazard (i.e., the ground

motions are representative of the distribution of ground motion parameters affecting

structural response that are expected at a given intensity level), the computed risk should

be the same no matter what IM is used. Though the ground motions used in Section 6.4

and again this section were not selected using the rigorous methodologies discussed in

the previous sources, which are described in subsequent paragraphs (e.g., the records

were not reselected at different intensity levels to reflect changes in the earthquake

magnitudes dominating the seismic hazard), the collapse risk estimates for the case study

measured by Saavg(0.2, 3) and by Saavg(1, 1) (or, equivalently, Sa(T1)) with the spectral

shape adjustment presented in Figure 6.16(c) are generally in relatively good agreement,

although Saavg(0.2, 3) clearly produces more stable collapse risk estimates among the

different ground motion sets considered.

appear in more detail in Lin (2012, Chapter 4 and Appendix A) and Lin et al. (2013b),

select ground motions at a given intensity level based on their match to a conditional

spectrum (CS) that describes the distribution (both mean and logarithmic standard

deviation) of spectral values at all periods based on a PSHA deaggregation. It is shown

that when different conditioning periods are used to derive the CS and characterize the

seismic hazard (e.g., using Sa(T1) versus Sa(2T1) as the IM), the resulting risk estimates

(i.e., mean annual frequency of exceeding a peak drift or peak floor acceleration, or c)

derived from different conditioning periods are typically in good agreement. For the

example 20-story RC MRF structure with T1 = 2.6 s used in Lin (2012, Chapter 4) and

Lin et al. (2013b), the c estimates vary from c = 3.12 x 10-4 for a conditioning period of

T = 0.45 s (which is equal to T3) to c = 5.02 x 10-4 for a conditioning period of T1 = 2.6 s

(Pc,50 from approximately 1.5% to 2.5%, respectively), which the authors consider a

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 239

small difference for the range of conditioning periods investigated. The authors also note

that approximations are involved in constructing the CS (as an exact CS that accounts for

multiple GMPEs used to construct the seismic hazard curve and multiple seismic sources

that contribute to the hazard, which implies additional variability of spectral values, was

not practical to compute at the time) but maintain that by selecting ground motions that

are truly consistent with the exact CS and other non-spectral ground motion parameters

of interest one should obtain a consistent (and accurate) risk prediction using any

conditioning period. Lin and Lin et al. note that there is still a benefit to choosing a

conditioning period that results in good structural response predictions as it reduces the

number of required analyses for a given level of accuracy (efficiency) and reduces the

impact of any inaccuracies representing spectral values other than T1 (sufficiency).

Bradley (2012) approaches hazard consistency in ground motion selection and risk

assessment via a six step process. A key component of this process is that the ground

motions selected at a given intensity level must match the distribution of ground motion

parameters affecting structural response that is expected based on the value of the

conditioning IM used to characterize the seismic hazard. This requires knowledge of

GMPEs and correlations between the different ground motion parameters used to form

the multivariate distribution of ground motion parameters and is achieved by use of the

generalized conditional intensity measure (GCIM) approach, which is described in detail

by Bradley (2010). Applying the six step process to a case study of a bridge-foundation-

soil system and considering 14 different ground motion parameters (including spectral

ordinates, peak ground velocity and acceleration, and duration measures), Bradley (2012)

showed that the seismic demand hazards of peak pile displacement, peak pile curvature,

and peak deck acceleration were in relatively good agreement using six different

conditioning IMs, including PGA, PGV, and spectral ordinates. Furthermore, Bradley

found that at the 2%-in-50-year hazard level neither the peak pile head displacement nor

the peak deck acceleration hazards estimated by the different conditioning IMs could be

distinguished as statistically different at the 5% significance level. Bradley notes that of

the six main sources of error he considers in the numerical computation of the seismic

demand hazard in a practical context, one of the major sources of uncertainty in the

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 240

computed hazard is related to using a finite number of ground motions. He also notes that

there is relationship between uncertainty in the seismic demand hazard and the

uncertainty in the seismic response conditioned on intensity measure (i.e., the lognormal

standard deviation) and recommends that the conditioning IM be chosen so that it

captures the amplitude of ground motion in the region of vibration frequencies that

govern the predominant physical mechanism controlling the seismic response of the

problem considered.

The findings of Bradley (2012), Lin (2012, Chapter 4) and Lin et al. (2013b) support the

conclusion that though ensuring consistency between the seismic hazard and ground

motions used in response analysis may theoretically lead to the same risk prediction

independent of the conditioning IM, in a practical context there is still value in using an

efficient IM as reduced uncertainty in the structural response should lead to a more

accurate prediction of the collapse risk. Keeping this in mind, the remainder of this

chapter focuses on identifying how changes in the period range affect the efficiency of

Saavg and investigating trends in the period ranges that produce the minimum dispersion

in collapse intensities (i.e., the maximum efficiency) for different structures, which is also

useful when structural response prediction is of primary concern. Additionally, although

it is theoretically possible to find a set of ground motions that match the probability

distribution of the conditioning IM, in reality one may encounter problems finding

recorded ground motion that fit the target probability distribution. In such cases, using an

IM that is robust with respect to changes in ground motion set is a very desirable

characteristic.

Before considering other structures, the case study structure described in Section 3.5 is

used to illustrate how different ground motion sets can affect the efficiency of Saavg(a, b)

and the optimum period range. Contours of dispersion on the collapse intensities

measured by Saavg(a, b) as a function of the a and b values used to compute Saavg are

presented in Figure 7.5 for different ground motion sets. These ground motion sets were

also used in Section 6.4, and relevant details about the sets are provided there. As

illustrated in Figure 7.5 the minimum dispersion of Saavg ranges from lnSaAvg = 0.20 at

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 241

Saavg(0.6, 2.5) for the Set #1A FN/FP ground motions (Figure 7.5(c)) to lnSaAvg = 0.29 at

Saavg(0.4, 2.8) for the CS, (T1) = 1.7 ground motions (Figure 7.5(e)). The value of a*

varies from 0 to 0.6 between the ground motion sets, with an average value of 0.3;

however, the value of b* is close to 3 (between 2.5 and 3.2) for all ground motion sets

considered (Figure 7.2 and Figure 7.5). It is important to highlight that even though no

single period range produces the minimum dispersion for all ground motion sets, the

dispersion using Saavg(0.2, 3) is no more than 0.03 lnSaAvg units greater than the minimum

dispersion for each ground motion set.

Figure 7.5: Contours of dispersion (ln) on the collapse intensities measured by Saavg(a, b)

as a function of the a and b values used to compute Saavg using arithmetic period spacing

for different ground motion sets: (a) LMSR-N; (b) Set One; (c) Set #1A, FN/FP; (d) Set

#1A, unrotated; (e) CS, (T1) = 1.7; (f) CS, (T1) = 1.8.

The discussion now turns to how the number and spacing of periods affects the dispersion

of the collapse intensities measured by Saavg(a, b). Figure 7.6 shows contours of the

dispersion (ln) on the collapse intensities measured by Saavg(a, b) as a function of the a

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 242

and b values used to compute Saavg. Figure 7.6(a) and Figure 7.6(b) present the results

when Saavg is computed using 100 periods and 10 periods, respectively, spaced

arithmetically between aT1 and bT1 1, which shows that in general neither the dispersion

associated with a particular Saavg(a, b) nor the values of a* and b* associated with the

minimum dispersion are sensitive to how many periods are used. A similar result is

observed when using logarithmic spacing, as the contours shown in Figure 7.6(c) based

on 100 periods are not significantly different from those in Figure 7.6(d), which are based

on 10 periods. Studies of other structures show that this observation is generally true for

both arithmetic and logarithmic spacing. Note that although there is a shift in the a* and

b* values from Figure 7.6(c) to Figure 7.6(d), which are denoted by a star in these

figures, the contour based on ln = 0.23 does not shift significantly, indicating that either

set of a* and b* values would produce essentially the same dispersion.

1

Note that in previous chapters Saavg was previously computed as Saavg(0.2, 3) using periods arithmetically

spaced every 0.01 s, which happens to involve 373 periods for this structure. The results are the same

whether 100 or 373 arithmetically spaced periods are used to compute Saavg(0.2, 3).

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 243

Figure 7.6: Contours of the dispersion (ln) of the collapse intensities as a function of the

a and b values used to compute Saavg(a, b) for various period spacing schemes:

(a) arithmetic spacing with 100 periods; (b) arithmetic spacing with 10 periods;

(c) logarithmic spacing with 100 periods; (d) logarithmic spacing with 10 periods.

Both the arithmetic and logarithmic period spacing schemes achieve an overall minimum

dispersion of lnSaAvg(a*,b*) = 0.22 as shown in Figure 7.6; however, the a* and b* values

associated with the minimum dispersion for a given period spacing are not the same.

Whereas Saavg(0.2, 3.0) produces the minimum dispersion for arithmetic spacing when

using 100 periods, Saavg(0.5, 3.7) produces the minimum dispersion for logarithmic

spacing when using 100 periods. The increase in both the a* and b* values for

logarithmic spacing relative to arithmetic spacing is also seen when looking at the

dispersion contours for this structure using the six other ground motion sets from Section

6.4, which are presented in Figure 7.7. Compared to similar contours presented in Figure

7.5 for arithmetic spacing, it is seen that the values of a* and b* increase by an average of

approximately 50% and 20%, respectively, for logarithmic spacing. The increase in a*

for logarithmic relative to arithmetic spacing is because logarithmic spacing samples

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 244

more heavily from the left half of the period range, and the spectral values at periods near

or greater than the fundamental period of the structure tend to capture more of the

damage potential (i.e., damaging pulses) of the ground motion than values at periods that

are short relative to the fundamental period. The increase in b* values may be related to

the increasing a* values, as for a given value of a increasing the b value will reduce the

concentration of periods near the a value for logarithmic spacing.

Figure 7.7: Contours of dispersion (ln) on the collapse intensities measured by Saavg(a, b)

as a function of the a and b values used to compute Saavg with logarithmic period spacing

for different ground motion sets: (a) LMSR-N; (b) Set One; (c) Set #1A, FN/FP; (d) Set

#1A, unrotated; (e) CS, (T1) = 1.7; (f) CS, (T1) = 1.8.

This section examines the optimum period range for a generic set of SDOF systems when

using arithmetic period spacing. The intent of this study is to determine if the trends of

reduced dispersion in collapse intensities using Saavg(a, b) versus Sa(T1) that are observed

for MDOF systems are also observed for SDOF systems. Particular focus is given to what

benefit, if any, is gained by including periods less than the fundamental period (i.e., using

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 245

a < 1) as previous studies (e.g., Bianchini 2008; Tsantaki et al. 2012) have generally not

discussed this for SDOF systems.

Periods of 0.1 s, 0.2 s, 0.5 s, 0.75 s, 1.0 s, 1.5 s, 2.0 s, 2.5 s, 3.0 s, 3.5 s, and 4 s are

considered, and 5% damping is used for all systems. A bilinear hysteretic model is used

and the force-deformation behavior is governed by a tri-linear backbone curve as

illustrated in Figure 7.8. All systems have a yield base shear coefficient of Vy/W = 0.25

(the yield base shear normalized by the weight of the system), a 3% strain hardening ratio

(i.e., the post-yield stiffness is 3% of the elastic stiffness), a plastic deformation of p =

4y as seen in Figure 7.8 (where y is the yield deformation), a post-capping deformation

of pc = 7y as seen in Figure 7.8, and a stability coefficient of = 0.03 (the weight of the

system times the lateral displacement normalized by the product of the height of the

system and base shear at which the lateral displacement is measured). The bilinear

hysteretic model uses the modified Ibarra-Medina-Krawinkler deterioration model

(Lignos and Krawinkler 2012a, Chapter 2) and all cyclic deterioration parameters are

defined as = 50. Incremental dynamic analyses are performed in IIIDAP (Lignos 2009)

using the LMSR-N ground motion set.

computed using arithmetic period spacing are presented for the different SDOF systems

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 246

in Figure 7.9. As shown in this figure, the dispersion is typically much more strongly

influenced by the b value or the upper limit of the period range, which was also observed

for MDOF case study structure. Most systems presented in Figure 7.9 achieve the

minimum dispersion at b values between 2 and 3. Note that again an upper limit of 10 s

was imposed on the period range used to compute Saavg, which is why some of the

contours of the longer period systems to not extend all the way to b = 6. Based on the

shape of the contours, however, it seems that the value of b* would likely not increase if

periods beyond 10 s were included in the period range. The more significant finding

regarding the period range, however, is that all of the 11 SDOF systems presented in

Figure 7.9 show that there is a benefit to including periods less than the fundamental

period as the minimum dispersion is achieved at a values less than 1 in all cases. This

may be a counterintuitive result for those who subscribe to the theory that accounting for

spectral ordinates at periods shorter than the fundamental is necessary to account for

higher mode effects and, therefore, for an SDOF system there would be no need or

benefit to including periods to the left of T1 when computing Saavg; however, as clearly

shown by these results, including information about spectral ordinates at periods smaller

than the fundamental period leads to reductions in dispersions even for SDOF systems

(which do not have higher modes of vibration).

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 247

Figure 7.9: Contours of dispersion (ln) on the collapse intensities measured by Saavg(a, b)

as a function of the a and b values used to compute Saavg for various SDOF systems:

(a) T = 0.1 s; (b) T = 0.2 s; (c) T = 0.5 s; (d) T = 0.75 s; (e) T = 1.0 s; (f) T = 1.5 s;

(g) T = 2.0 s; (h) T = 2.5 s; (i) T = 3.0 s; (j) T = 3.5 s; (k) T = 4.0 s.

exclusively due to including spectral ordinates with periods close to those of higher

modes but also, and perhaps more importantly, because including spectral ordinates at

periods less the fundamental period in the spectral averaging range provides information

of critical acceleration pulses in the ground motion that increase displacement demands in

the system. As discussed in Chapter 5, using an average spectral value also minimizes the

role that the initial conditions play in the response of the elastic system, which is

important as a nonlinear system will, in general, not have the same initial conditions as

the elastic system and can therefore respond very differently than the elastic system to the

same ground motion segment. For this reason, it makes sense to take the average spectral

value using periods smaller and larger than the fundamental period as neighboring

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 248

systems (i.e., systems with periods similar to the fundamental period) can represent how

the elastic system may have responded given different initial conditions even for SDOF

systems (that, by definition, do not have higher modes of vibration). Additional details

regarding this reasoning are provided in Sections 5.4 and 5.5.

Further studies using SDOF systems are necessary to determine how the a value

associated with the minimum dispersion of collapse intensities of Saavg(a, b) varies as a

function of system parameters (e.g., less ductile systems than the ones examined here)

and period, but the results presented in Figure 7.9 suggest that even for SDOF systems a

reduction in the dispersion of collapse intensities measured by Saavg is achieved by

including periods less than the fundamental period in the averaging range.

Nearly 400 generic MRF structures used by Zareian and Krawinkler (2009) are studied

here to develop recommendations for the range of periods to use when computing Saavg

and to investigate the effect of period spacing when computing Saavg. Structures of 4, 8,

12 and 16 stories are included, and the fundamental period of these structures for a given

number of stories (N) was set to be either T1 = 0.1N, 0.15N or 0.2N seconds. Structural

parameters such as the ductility-dependent strength reduction factor (R), the variation of

strength and stiffness over the height, and the post-elastic behavior of components are

also varied. All structures were analyzed with the LMSR-N ground motion set.

Additional details about these structures are provided in Appendix B.

Figure 7.10 presents contours of the dispersion of the collapse intensities as a function of

the a and b values used to compute Saavg(a, b) that are representative of results for the 4-

story structures (Figure 7.10(a)), the 8-story structures (Figure 7.10(b)), the 12-story

structures (Figure 7.10(c)), and the 16-story structures (Figure 7.10(d)). Let a* and b*

denote the values of a and b for which Saavg(a, b) produces the minimum dispersion in

the collapse intensities. As indicated by Figure 7.10 a* is 0 or practically 0 for these

structures, which indicates the minimum dispersion is achieved when the period range

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 249

starts from T = 0. In fact, all but 21 of the 396 structures have a* 0.05, and these 21

structures for which a* > 0.05 are all 4-story structures. Figure 7.10 also indicates that the

value of b* generally decreases as the number of stories increases. This trend was

observed although notable exceptions to this trend are the 4-story structures with

T1 = 0.4 s, for which the mean value of b* is 2.6.

Figure 7.10: Contours of the dispersion (ln) of the collapse intensities as a function of the

a and b values used to compute Saavg(a, b) using arithmetic period spacing that are

representative of results for generic MRF structures: (a) 4 story; (b) 8 story; (c) 12 story;

(d) 16 story.

The trends concerning the a* and b* values implied by Figure 7.10 are better illustrated

in Figure 7.11, which shows histograms representing the joint distribution of the a* and

b* values for the 396 generic MRF structures. The histograms are separated based on

number of stories, and for a given number of stories there are 99 structures. As previously

noted, the 4-story structures shown in Figure 7.11(a) tend to have more scatter in the a*

values than the other structures, which all have a* 0.05; however, the majority of a*

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 250

values for the 4-story structures are still less than or equal to 0.05, indicating that cases in

which a* > 0.05 are not only a small fraction of the total number of buildings analyzed

but are even a small fraction of the 4-story buildings. The histograms in Figure 7.11 also

show that for the four building heights the b* values tend to be concentrated between 2

and 4.

Figure 7.11: Histogram of a* and b* values associated with the minimum dispersion of

Saavg(a, b) using arithmetic period spacing for generic MRF structures: (a) 4 story; (b) 8

story; (c) 12 story; (d) 16 story.

Figure 7.12 shows the b* values for each of the 396 structures. The horizontal axis in

Figure 7.12 that displays the structure number (a value between 1 and 396) was added to

make the data easier to see because the points are tightly clustered in some regions,

especially for b* between 3 and 4, which indicates that these period ranges generally give

the minimum dispersion for the generic MRF structures examined here. The vertical lines

divide the structures into bins based on fundamental period. For a given number of

stories, the left, center, and right bins indicate structures with fundamental periods of T1 =

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 251

0.1N, 0.15N or 0.2N seconds, respectively. Figure 7.12 shows that with the exception

of the 4-story structures with T1 = 0.1N (i.e., Structure 1 through Structure 33), the value

of b* for a given number of stories tends to decrease as the fundamental period of the

structure increases, and this trend generally becomes more pronounced as the number of

stories increases.

Figure 7.12: Scatter plot of b* using arithmetic period spacing for all generic MRF

structures.

To investigate if there are any trends with b* as a function of T1, Figure 7.13 shows the

b* values of all 396 structures plotted as a function of T1 in the log-log domain. The

correlation coefficient between b* and T1 is = -0.58, indicating that b* generally

decreases with increasing T1. This correlation coefficient was computed for all structures

excluding those with T1 = 0.4 s, which as noted earlier do not follow the trend of

decreasing b* with increasing T1. A linear regression to the data shown Figure 7.13

indicates that the b* value is approximately 4.1 for structures with T1 = 0.6 s and

decreases to approximately 2.5 when T1 = 3.2 s. As seen in Figure 7.13 there is a

considerable amount of scatter about the regression, which is reflected by the correlation

coefficient of = -0.58 (or equivalently the 2 = R2 value of 0.34).

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 252

Figure 7.13: b* value associated with the minimum dispersion of Saavg(a, b) as a function

of T1 using arithmetic period spacing for the generic MRF structures.

Other trends between the value of b* and structural properties (e.g., strength, stiffness

distribution, and post-yield structural component parameters) are examined. Though

some minor trends are observed (e.g., for systems whose components have small plastic

deformation capacities, the value of b* generally increases with increasing values of R,

with all other structural properties being equal), the relationship between b* and the

structural properties appears to be primarily dominated by the fundamental period of the

system.

To develop a general and simple recommendation for the values of a and b to use when

computing Saavg that are not a function of structural properties such as T1, the difference

between the dispersion on the collapse intensities computed using Saavg(a*, b*) (i.e., the

overall minimum dispersion for each structure) versus Saavg(a, b) for given values of a

and b were computed for each of the 396 generic MRF structures. The mean value of this

difference for all 396 structures is shown in Figure 7.14, which shows a contour plot of

the difference in dispersion as a function of the a and b values used to compute

Saavg(a, b). Figure 7.14(a) presents the results when the difference is computed in

absolute terms (e.g., lnSaAvg(a,b) - lnSaAvg(a*,b*)), and Figure 7.14(b) presents the results

when the absolute difference is normalized by the value of lnSaAvg(a*,b*). The latter case

essentially represents a percent difference and is used because the overall minimum

dispersion varies between structures from lnSaAvg(a*,b*) = 0.11 for one of the 4-story

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 253

structures to lnSaAvg(a*,b*) = 0.34 for one of the 16-story structures. Both plots in Figure

7.14 indicate that a = 0 and b = 3 are convenient values to use when computing

Saavg(a, b) as these values show a relatively small difference, on average, from the

absolute minimum dispersion that can be calculated for a given structure using Saavg. The

absolute difference is on the order of 0.02 lnSaAvg units when using a = 0 and b = 3 as

seen in Figure 7.14(a), and the relative difference is on the order of 0.1, or 10%, as seen

in Figure 7.14(b).

Figure 7.14: Contour plot showing the mean value, based on the 396 generic MRF

structures, of the difference between the dispersion on the collapse intensities computed

using Saavg(a*, b*) versus Saavg(a, b) as a function of a and b using arithmetic period

spacing: (a) difference in absolute terms; (b) difference normalized by the dispersion

based on Saavg(a*, b*).

Figure 7.15 is used to investigate how the efficiency (as measured by the dispersion of

the collapse intensities) of Saavg(0, b) is affected when b is calculated using the regression

with T1 shown in Figure 7.13 (denoted as b:reg) versus the constant (i.e., independent of

T1) recommendation of b = 3 and how these compare to the efficiency of Saavg(a*, b*).

Figure 7.15(a) is a scatter plot comparing the value of lnSaAvg(a*,b*) to lnSaAvg(0,b:reg) for

each of the 396 generic MRF structures. Note that the b:reg value predicted by the

equation shown in Figure 7.13 is used for structures with T1 = 0.4 s, even though these

structures were not used in determining the regression coefficients. Many points in Figure

7.15(a) lie at or on the x = y line, which indicates that the regression is generally

effective at predicting a b value that, when used with a = 0, will give a dispersion that is

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 254

essentially the same as the overall minimum dispersion for that structure. This is

reinforced by that fact that the point denoting the mean dispersion for all structures is

close to the x = y line. Similar observations are made when comparing lnSaAvg(a*,b*) to

lnSaAvg(0,3), which is shown in Figure 7.15(b). Figure 7.15(c) compares lnSaAvg(0,3) to

lnSaAvg(0,b:reg), and it is seen that computing b using the regression versus a period-

independent value of b = 3 generally leads to a smaller dispersion as most points,

including the mean point, lie above the x = y line. However, because (1) the difference

in the dispersion when b is computed from the regression versus using the period-

independent value of b = 3 is generally relatively small; and (2) using b:reg versus b = 3

actually increases the dispersion for some structures, this indicates that there is generally

not a significant advantage to using b:reg (a period-dependent b) over b = 3.

Figure 7.15: Scatter plot of dispersion in collapse intensities computed using Saavg with

arithmetic period spacing for the 396 generic MRF structures for different computations

of Saavg(a, b): (a) Saavg(a*, b*) vs. Saavg(0, b:reg); (b) Saavg(a*, b*) vs. Saavg(0, 3); (c)

Saavg(0, 3) vs. Saavg(0, b:reg). Note that b:reg is the b value obtained from the regression

based on T1 shown in Figure 7.13.

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 255

Figure 7.16 presents contours of the dispersion of the collapse intensities as a function of

the a and b values used to compute Saavg(a, b) using logarithmic period spacing that are

representative of results for the 4-story structures (Figure 7.16(a)), the 8-story structures

(Figure 7.16(b)), the 12-story structures (Figure 7.16(c)), and the 16-story structures

(Figure 7.16(d)). As indicated by Figure 7.16, a* is generally between 0.2 and 0.4 and the

value of b* generally decreases as the number of stories increases. Periods greater than

10 s are not included in the range to compute Saavg, which is why some of the dispersion

contours in Figure 7.16 do not extended to the maximum b value shown in the figure.

This decision is made as many GMPEs do not predict spectral values at periods greater

than 10 s, which means that even though using a period range extending past 10 s may

reduce the dispersion in the collapse intensities, seismic hazard data, which is necessary

to compute the collapse risk, may not be available or may not be reliable as spectral

ordinates beyond 10 s are typically strongly affected by base-line correction and other

record processing modifications applied to ground motion recordings. The shape of the

dispersion contours suggests that for logarithmic spacing there may be more of a

penalty on the dispersion when underestimating either a* or b* than when

overestimating either a* or b* (i.e., it may be better to overestimate a* or b* than to

underestimate these values because the dispersion appears more sensitive to the latter

case).

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 256

Figure 7.16: Contours of the dispersion (ln) of the collapse intensities as a function of the

a and b values used to compute Saavg(a, b) for logarithmic period spacing that are

representative of results for generic MRF structures: (a) 4 story; (b) 8 story; (c) 12 story;

(d) 16 story. Note the different vertical axes between (a) and (b) versus (c) and (d).

To understand in a more general way how the a* and b* values vary for logarithmic

spacing, histograms describing the distribution of a* and b* for the generic MRF

structures are shown in Figure 7.17. Similar to the arithmetic spacing presented in the

previous section, the histograms are broken down by number of stories, where there are

99 structures for a given number of stories. A comparison of the a* and b* histograms for

logarithmic spacing (Figure 7.17) and arithmetic spacing (Figure 7.11) shows that both

the a* and b* values vary much more between structures for logarithmic spacing than for

arithmetic spacing.

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 257

Figure 7.17: Histogram of a* and b* values associated with the minimum dispersion of

Saavg(a, b) using logarithmic period spacing for generic MRF structures: (a) 4 story;

(b) 8 story; (c) 12 story; (d) 16 story. Note this figure uses logarithmic period spacing

while Figure 7.11 uses arithmetic period spacing.

Scatter plots of the a* and b* values found using logarithmic spacing versus the

fundamental structural period are shown in the log-log domain in Figure 7.18(a) and

Figure 7.18(b), respectively, for the generic MRF structures. It is seen that there is only a

mild downward trend between a* and T1 as reflected by the correlation coefficient of

= -0.20; however, a significantly stronger linear trend exists between b* and T1 in the

log-log domain as the correlation coefficient is = -0.74. The 4-story structures with T1 =

0.4 s were excluded from both regressions as they generally did not follow the trend,

which was also observed using arithmetic spacing.

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 258

Figure 7.18: Relationship between the a* and b* values associated with the minimum

dispersion of Saavg(a, b) obtained using logarithmic period spacing and T1 for the generic

MRF structures: (a) a* and T1; (b) b* and T1.

Figure 7.19 is used to investigate how the efficiency (as measured by the dispersion of

the collapse intensities) of Saavg(a, b) is affected when a and b are calculated using the

regression with T1 shown in Figure 7.18 (denoted as a:reg and b:reg, respectively) versus

the period-independent recommendation of a = 0.2 and b = 9 and how these compare to

the efficiency of Saavg(a*, b*). The values of a and b used for the period-independent

recommendation are the values that, on average based on the 396 structures, result in the

smallest difference between the overall minimum dispersion of a given structure and the

dispersion calculated using period-independent values of a and b. Note that a maximum

period of T = 10 s was used to compute Saavg even if bT1 exceeded 10 s (i.e., b for the

period-independent recommendation was taken as the minimum of 9 and 10/T1). This

was done because many GMPEs do not predict spectral values at periods greater than 10

s, meaning that even if including periods greater than 10 s reduces the dispersion, the

collapse risk may not be able to be computed using Saavg over such a period range

because of a lack of seismic hazard data. Figure 7.19(a) is a scatter plot comparing the

value of lnSaAvg(a*,b*) to lnSaAvg(a:reg,b:reg) while Figure 7.19(b) compares lnSaAvg(a*,b*) to

lnSaAvg(0.2,9) and Figure 7.19(c) compares lnSaAvg(0.2,9) to lnSaAvg(a:reg,b:reg). It can be seen

that both the period-dependent and period-independent values of a and b generally

produce a dispersion close to the overall minimum dispersion of a given structure. Figure

7.19(c) shows that there is generally minimal, if any, an advantage to using the period-

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 259

b = 9.

Figure 7.19: Scatter plot of dispersion in collapse intensities computed using Saavg with

logarithmic period spacing for the 396 generic MRF structures for different computations

of Saavg(a, b): (a) Saavg(a*, b*) vs. Saavg(a:reg, b:reg); (b) Saavg(a*, b*) vs. Saavg(0.2, 9);

(c) Saavg(0.2, 9) vs. Saavg(a:reg, b:reg). Note that a:reg and b:reg are the a and b values,

respectively, obtained from the regression based on T1 shown in Figure 7.18.

Figure 7.20 plots the values of lnSaAvg(a*,b*) computed using arithmetic versus logarithmic

spacing for the generic MRF structures. It is seen that logarithmic spacing produces a

slight reduction in dispersion compared to arithmetic spacing for most of the structures,

as most of the data points are below the x = y line in Figure 7.20. However, the

difference in dispersion is generally very small, as it is approximately 0.01 lnSaAvg units

or a relative difference of 5%, on average, for the 396 structures.

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 260

Figure 7.20: Comparison of the overall minimum dispersion, lnSaAvg(a*,b*), achieved with

logarithmic versus arithmetic period spacing for the 396 generic MRF structures.

While it is observed that the overall minimum dispersion achieved with logarithmic

versus arithmetic spacing is generally comparable, a very important point is that the

values of a* and b* associated with the period range that produces the minimum

dispersion are not the same for both spacing schemes. The average value of a* increased

from 0 for arithmetic spacing to 0.3 for logarithmic spacing. An increase in the b* value

was also observed for logarithmic spacing, with the b* value for logarithmic spacing

being double, on average, that for arithmetic spacing. The average b* value is 3 for

arithmetic spacing and 6 for logarithmic spacing.

It is important to be able to predict a priori a period range that will result in an efficient

estimation (i.e., a small dispersion) of the collapse intensities measured by Saavg for a

given structure because (1) it is generally impractical to compute the dispersion of

collapse intensities for multiple period ranges; and, more importantly, (2) one should

obtain the collapse intensities using ground motions that are appropriate for the site and

the hazard level of interest as identified through a PSHA deaggregation, which is a

function of the period range used to compute Saavg. The overall minimum dispersion

lnSaAvg(a*,b*) obtained via logarithmic period spacing was generally (slightly) smaller than

that obtained via arithmetic spacing (Figure 7.20), but it remains to be seen which period

spacing scheme leads to more efficiency when the period range used to compute Saavg is

predicted as a function of structural properties. Figure 7.21(a) compares the dispersion of

the 396 generic MRF structures computed using the period-independent a and b values

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 261

previously recommended for use with arithmetic and logarithmic spacing. It is seen that

logarithmic spacing generally results in reduced dispersion for most structures, but the

difference is small. The average reduction is 0.02 lnSaAvg units or a relative reduction of

6%. A slight improvement is achieved for arithmetic spacing when the regression seen in

Figure 7.13 is used to determine the b. Figure 7.21(b) compares these dispersions to those

computed using Saavg(0.2, 9) for logarithmic spacing, but it is seen that logarithmic

spacing is still slightly more efficient, on average, than arithmetic spacing. The average

reduction is 0.01 lnSaAvg units or a relative reduction of 5%. It should be noted that the

results presented here are based on sampling spectral values at 100 periods within a given

period range but that when only 10 periods were used, the results did not change

significantly.

Figure 7.21: Comparison of the dispersion, lnSaAvg(a,b), achieved with logarithmic versus

arithmetic period spacing for the 396 generic MRF structures using: (a) Saavg(0.2, 9) for

logarithmic spacing versus Saavg(0, 3) for arithmetic spacing; (b) Saavg(0.2, 9) for

logarithmic spacing versus Saavg(0, b:reg) for arithmetic spacing. Note that b:reg is the b

value obtained from the regression based on T1 shown in Figure 7.13.

Thirty RC MRF structures used by Haselton and Deierlein (2007, Chapter 3) are analyzed

here to develop recommendations for the range of periods (i.e. values of a and b) to use

when computing Saavg and to investigate the effect of period spacing when computing

Saavg. Structures with 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 20 stories are included. The fundamental period

of the structures ranges from T1 = 0.42 s to 2.63 s. For a given number of stories the

structures vary in their design decisions (e.g., perimeter frame versus space frame, bay

width, conservatism in column sizes and reinforcement ratios, etc.). All structures were

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 262

analyzed with the Set One ground motion set. Additional details about these structures

are provided in Appendix B.

Figure 7.22 presents contours of the dispersion of the collapse intensities as a function of

the a and b values used to compute Saavg(a, b) with arithmetic period spacing that are

representative of results for the 1-story structures (Figure 7.22(a)), the 2-story structures

(Figure 7.22(b)), the 4-story structures (Figure 7.22(c)), the 8-story structures (Figure

7.22(d)), the 12-story structures (Figure 7.22(e)), and the 20-story structures (Figure

7.22(f)). As indicated by Figure 7.22 both the a* and b* values generally decrease as the

number of stories increases. The trend of b* decreasing with increasing number of stories

was observed for the generic MRF structures; however, the a* values were generally

close to 0 for structures greater than four stories (Figure 7.11). The a* values of the 4-

story generic MRF structures varied between 0 and 1, but the value of a generally did not

have a large influence on the dispersion of Saavg(a, b), which is also observed for the 1-,

2- and 4-story RC MRFs in Figure 7.22.

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 263

Figure 7.22: Contours of the dispersion (ln) of the collapse intensities as a function of the

a and b values used to compute Saavg(a, b) using arithmetic period spacing that are

representative of results for RC MRF structures: (a) 1 story; (b) 2 story; (c) 4 story; (d) 8

story; (e) 12 story; (f) 20 story. Note the different vertical scales between plots (a), (b)

and (c) versus plots (d), (e) and (f).

The trends indicated by Figure 7.22 are better illustrated in Figure 7.23, which shows a

scatter plot of the a* and b* values for each of the 30 RC MRF structures. As previously

indicated, both the a* and b* values generally decrease as the number of stories

increases. Of the four one-story structures considered, only one of them has an a* value

less than 1. This structure has a fundamental period of T = 0.71 s, while the other one-

story structures all have periods of T = 0.42 s. The a* value of the generic SDOF systems

investigated in Section 7.3.2 was less than 1, even for structures with T 0.5 s. Despite

the difference in a* values, the value of a used to compute Saavg(a, b) generally has a

minor influence on the dispersion of the collapse intensities for short period structures.

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 264

Figure 7.23: Scatter plot of a* and b* using arithmetic period spacing for all RC MRF

structures.

Figure 7.24 shows the b* values of all 30 RC MRF structures plotted as a function of T1

in the log-log domain and includes a linear regression fit to the data. One-story structures

with T1 = 0.43 s are excluded from the regression as their b* values were approximately

5, and this was not captured by the linear regression. The regression indicates that the b*

value is approximately 6.0 for structures with T1 = 0.5 s and decreases linearly (in the

log-log domain) to approximately 2.7 when T1 = 2.5 s. As seen in Figure 7.24 the

regression fits the data very well, which is reflected by the correlation coefficient of = -

0.97 (or equivalently R2 = 2 = 0.94).

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 265

Figure 7.24: b* value associated with the minimum dispersion of Saavg(a, b) as a function

of T1 using arithmetic period spacing for the RC MRF structures.

The regressions of b* versus T1 shown in Figure 7.13 for the generic MRF structures and

in Figure 7.24 for the RC MRF structures are similar, with both regressions predicting a

b* value of approximately 3 for T1 = 2 s. For T1 < 2 the RC MRF regression predicts

slightly higher b* values, although it is based on significantly fewer data points than the

generic MRF regression.

one that is not a function of structural properties such as T1), the difference between the

dispersion on the collapse intensities computed using Saavg(a*, b*) (i.e., the overall

minimum dispersion for a given structure) versus Saavg(a, b) for given values of a and b is

computed for each of the 30 RC MRF structures. The mean value of this difference for all

30 structures is shown in Figure 7.25, which shows a contour plot of the difference in

dispersion as a function of the a and b values used to compute Saavg(a, b). Figure 7.25(a)

presents the results when the difference is computed in absolute terms (e.g., lnSaAvg(a,b) -

lnSaAvg(a*,b*)), and Figure 7.25(b) presents the results when the absolute difference is

normalized by the value of lnSaAvg(a*,b*). The latter case essentially represents a percent

difference and is used because the overall minimum dispersion varies between structures.

Both plots in Figure 7.25 indicate that a = 0 and b = 3.5 are convenient values to use

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 266

when computing Saavg(a, b) as these values are associated with the smallest difference, on

average, from the absolute minimum dispersion that can be calculated for a given

structure using Saavg. The absolute difference is on the order of 0.04 lnSaAvg units when

using a = 0 and b = 3.5 as seen in Figure 7.25(a), and the relative difference is on the

order of 0.24, or 24%, as seen in Figure 7.25 (b). These differences are larger than those

seen for the generic MRF structures and are largely due to the presence of the 1- and 2-

story structures in the RC MRF set, which tend to have higher b* values than structures

with more stories. This also contributes to a slightly higher recommended period-

independent b value for the RC MRF structures compared to the generic MRF structures

(b = 3.5 versus 3, respectively).

Figure 7.25: Contour plot showing the mean value, based on the 30 RC MRF structures,

of the difference between the dispersion on the collapse intensities computed using

Saavg(a*, b*) versus Saavg(a, b) as a function of a and b using arithmetic period spacing:

(a) difference in absolute terms; (b) difference normalized by the dispersion based on

Saavg(a*, b*).

Figure 7.26 is used to investigate how the efficiency (as measured by the dispersion of

the collapse intensities) of Saavg(0, b) is affected when b is calculated using the regression

with T1 shown in Figure 7.24 (denoted as b:reg) versus the period-independent

recommendation of b = 3.5 and how these compare to the efficiency of Saavg(a*, b*).

Figure 7.26(a) is a scatter plot comparing the value of lnSaAvg(a*,b*) to lnSaAvg(0,b:reg) for

each of the 30 RC MRF structures. Note that the b:reg value predicted by the equation

shown in Figure 7.24 is used for structures with T1 = 0.42 s, even though these structures

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 267

were not used in determining the regression coefficients. Many points in Figure 7.26(a)

lie on or near the x = y line, which indicates that the regression is very effective at

predicting a b value that, when used with a = 0, will give a dispersion that is essentially

the same as the overall minimum dispersion for a given structure. This is reinforced by

that fact that the point denoting the mean dispersion for all structures is close to the

x = y line. The close match between lnSaAvg(a*,b*) and lnSaAvg(0,b:reg) is somewhat

expected based on the high correlation coefficient between b* and b:reg shown in Figure

7.24 coupled with the fact that the a value generally does not have a large effect on the

dispersion. The period-independent values of a = 0 and b = 3.5 produce more scatter with

respect to lnSaAvg(a*,b*), as shown in Figure 7.26(b), compared to using a = 0 and b =

b:reg. Figure 7.26(c) compares lnSaAvg(0,3.5) to lnSaAvg(0,b:reg), and it is seen that using a

period-dependent b versus a period-independent value of b = 3.5 generally leads to equal

or smaller dispersion as nearly all points, including the mean point, lie on or above the

x = y line. The absolute difference in the dispersion when b is period-dependent versus

using the period-independent value of b = 3.5 is generally small; however, for nearly a

third of the RC MRF structures using the period-independent value of b = 3.5 increases

the dispersion by at least 25% compared to the value computed using b:reg.

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 268

Figure 7.26: Scatter plot of dispersion in collapse intensities computed using Saavg for the

30 RC MRF structures for different computations of Saavg(a, b) using arithmetic period

spacing: (a) Saavg(a*, b*) vs. Saavg(0, b:reg); (b) Saavg(a*, b*) vs. Saavg(0, 3.5); (c)

Saavg(0, 3.5) vs. Saavg(0, b:reg). Note that b:reg is the b value obtained from the

regression based on T1 shown in Figure 7.24.

Figure 7.27 presents contours of the dispersion of the collapse intensities as a function of

the a and b values used to compute Saavg(a, b) with logarithmic period spacing that are

representative of results for the 1-story structures (Figure 7.27(a)), the 2-story structures

(Figure 7.27(b)), the 4-story structures (Figure 7.27(c)), the 8-story structures (Figure

7.27(d)), the 12-story structures (Figure 7.27(e)), and the 20-story structures (Figure 7.27

(f)). As indicated by Figure 7.27 both the a* and b* values generally decrease as the

number of stories increases. The trend of b* decreasing with increasing number of stories

was also observed for the generic MRF structures.

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 269

Figure 7.27: Contours of the dispersion (ln) of the collapse intensities as a function of the

a and b values used to compute Saavg(a, b) using logarithmic period spacing that are

representative of results for RC MRF structures: (a) 1 story; (b) 2 story; (c) 4 story; (d) 8

story; (e) 12 story; (f) 20 story. Note the different vertical scales between plots (a), (b)

and (c) versus plots (d), (e) and (f).

The relationship of the a* and b* values with T1 are shown in Figure 7.28(a) and Figure

7.28(b), respectively. Both the a* and b* show a strong linear trend with T1 in the log-log

domain, as the correlation coefficients are = -0.7 and -0.8, respectively. The strong

relationship between a* and T1 was not observed for the generic MRF structures when

using logarithmic spacing.

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 270

Figure 7.28: Relationship between the a* and b* values associated with the minimum

dispersion of Saavg(a, b) obtained using logarithmic period spacing and T1 for the 30 RC

MRF structures: (a) a* and T1; (b) b* and T1.

Figure 7.29 is used to investigate how the efficiency (as measured by the dispersion of

the collapse intensities) of Saavg(a, b) is affected when a and b are calculated using the

regression with T1 shown in Figure 7.28 (denoted as a:reg and b:reg, respectively) versus

the period-independent recommendation of a = 0.4 and b = 9 and how these compare to

the efficiency of Saavg(a*, b*). The values of a and b used for the period-independent

recommendation are the values that, on average based on the 30 RC MRF structures,

result in the smallest difference between the overall minimum dispersion of a given

structure and the dispersion calculated using period-independent values of a and b. As

before, a maximum period of T = 10 s was used to compute Saavg even if bT1 exceeded

10 s (i.e., b for the period-independent recommendation was taken as the minimum of 9

and 10/T1). Figure 7.29(a) is a scatter plot comparing the value of lnSaAvg(a*,b*) to

lnSaAvg(a:reg,b:reg) while Figure 7.29(b) compares lnSaAvg(a*,b*) to lnSaAvg(0.4,9) and Figure

7.29(c) lnSaAvg(0.4,9) to lnSaAvg(a:reg,b:reg). It can be seen in Figure 7.29(a) that using the

regression-based values of a and b produces dispersions that are a very close match to the

overall minimum dispersion. This is not unexpected as the regressions predicted a and b

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 271

values that were generally close to the a* and b* values, respectively as seen in Figure

7.28. The period-independent values of a = 0.2 and b = 9 generally produce a dispersion

close to the overall minimum dispersion of a given structure as seen in Figure 7.29(b);

however, for some structures using the difference can be large. Figure 7.19(c) shows that

the regression-based (i.e., period-dependent) values of a and b will generally lead to

smaller dispersions than the period-independent values of a = 0.2 and b = 9. On average,

there is a 9% reduction in dispersion using the regression-based values compared to the

period-independent values, which is equivalent to an absolute reduction of 0.02 lnSaAvg

units.

Figure 7.29: Comparison of the dispersion, lnSaAvg(a,b), achieved with logarithmic period

spacing for the 30 RC MRF structures for different computations of Saavg(a, b) using

arithmetic period spacing: (a) Saavg(a*, b*) vs. Saavg(a:reg, b:reg); (b) Saavg(a*, b*) vs.

Saavg(0.4, 9); (c) Saavg(0.4, 9) vs. Saavg(a:reg, b:reg). Note that a:reg and b:reg are the a

and b values obtained from the regressions based on T1 shown in Figure 7.28.

Figure 7.30 compares the dispersion of collapse intensities computed using Saavg with

arithmetic versus logarithmic period spacing schemes for the 30 RC MRF structures.

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 272

Figure 7.30(a) compares the overall minimum dispersion lnSaAvg(a*,b*), and it is observed

that there is not a significant difference in the value computed using arithmetic versus

logarithmic period spacing. Figure 7.30(b) compares the dispersion computed using the

period-independent a and b values previously recommended for use with arithmetic and

logarithmic spacing (i.e., Saavg(0.4, 9) for logarithmic spacing versus Saavg(0, 3.5) for

arithmetic spacing). It is observed that logarithmic spacing generally results in a slight

reduction in dispersion, but the difference is relatively small (an average reduction of 3%,

or less than 0.01 lnSaAvg units). Figure 7.30(c) compares the dispersion computed using

Saavg(0, b:reg) for arithmetic spacing (where b:reg is determined from Figure 7.24) and

Saavg(a:reg, b:reg) for logarithmic spacing (where a:reg and b:reg are determined from

Figure 7.28), and it is observed that there is generally not a significant difference in the

dispersions computed using arithmetic versus logarithmic period spacing when using

period-dependent values of a and b. It should be noted that the results presented here are

based on sampling spectral values at 100 periods within a given period range but that

when only 10 periods were used, the results did not change significantly.

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 273

Figure 7.30: Comparison of the dispersion, lnSaAvg(a,b), achieved with logarithmic versus

arithmetic period spacing for the 30 RC MRF structures using: (a) the overall minimum

dispersion; (b) period-independent (rigid) recommendations of Saavg(0.4, 9) for

logarithmic spacing versus Saavg(0, 3.5) for arithmetic spacing; (c) regression-based

values of Saavg(a:reg, b:reg). Note that a:reg and b:reg are the a and b values,

respectively, obtained from the regressions based on T1 shown in Figure 7.24 for

arithmetic spacing and in Figure 7.28 for logarithmic spacing. Also note that for

arithmetic spacing a:reg = 0.

Approximately 250 generic shear wall structures used by Zareian and Krawinkler (2009)

are analyzed here to again develop recommendations for the range of periods (i.e. values

of a and b) to use when computing Saavg in these types of structures and to investigate the

effect of period spacing when computing Saavg. The behavior of these structures is

governed by flexure, and shear deformations and shear failure are not considered.

Structures of 4, 8, 12 and 16 stories are included, and the first mode period of the

structure for a given number of stories (N) is either T1 = 0.05N, 0.075N or 0.1N

seconds. Structural parameters including the ductility-dependent strength reduction factor

(R) and the post-elastic behavior of components are also varied. All structures were

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 274

analyzed with the LMSR-N ground motion set. Additional details about these structures

are provided in Appendix B.

Figure 7.31 presents contours of the dispersion of the collapse intensities as a function of

the a and b values used to compute Saavg(a, b) with arithmetic period spacing that are

representative of results for the 4-story structures (Figure 7.31(a)), the 8-story structures

(Figure 7.31(b)), the 12-story structures (Figure 7.31(c)), and the 16-story structures

(Figure 7.31(d)). As indicated by Figure 7.31 a* is generally 0, which indicates the

minimum dispersion is achieved when the period range starts from T = 0. The 4-story

structures are generally an exception to this statement; however, the a value typically has

minimal effect on the dispersion of Saavg(a, b) as indicated by Figure 7.31(a). Figure 7.31

also indicates that the value of b* generally decreases as the number of stories increases,

which was also observed for the MRF structures.

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 275

Figure 7.31: Contours of the dispersion (ln) of the collapse intensities as a function of the

a and b values used to compute Saavg(a, b) using arithmetic period spacing that are

representative of results for generic shear wall structures: (a) 4 story; (b) 8 story; (c) 12

story; (d) 16 story. Note the different vertical scales between plots (a) and (b) versus plots

(c) and (d).

The trends implied by Figure 7.31 are better illustrated in Figure 7.32, which shows

histograms representing the joint distribution of the a* and b* values for the 252

structures. The histograms are separated based on number of stories, and for a given

number of stories there are 63 structures. As previously noted, the 4-story structures

shown in Figure 7.32(a) tend to have more scatter in the a* values than the other

structures and significantly more scatter in the a* values than the 4-story generic MRF

structures presented in Figure 7.11(a). With the exception of the 4-story structures, the

vast majority a* values for the generic shear walls structures in Figure 7.32 tend to be

less than 0.10. The histograms in Figure 7.32 also show that the b* values tend to be

concentrated between 4 and 10, and the overall scatter in a* and b* values tends to

decrease as the number of stories increases.

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 276

Figure 7.32: Histogram of a* and b* values associated with the minimum dispersion of

Saavg(a, b) for generic shear wall structures using arithmetic period spacing: (a) 4 story;

(b) 8 story; (c) 12 story; (d) 16 story. Note the different axes used for (a).

Figure 7.33 shows the b* values for each of the 252 structures. The horizontal axis in

Figure 7.33 that displays the structure number (a value between 1 and 252) was added to

make the data easier to see because the points are tightly clustered in some regions. The

vertical lines divide the structures into bins based on fundamental period. For a given

number of stories, the left, center, and right bins indicate structures with fundamental

periods of T1 = 0.05N, 0.075N or 0.1N seconds, respectively. Figure 7.33 shows that

the value of b* for a given number of stories tends to decrease as the fundamental period

of the structure increases, and this trend generally becomes more pronounced as the

number of stories increases. A similar trend was observed for the generic MRF structures.

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 277

Figure 7.33: Scatter plot of b* for all generic shear wall structures using arithmetic period

spacing.

Figure 7.34 shows the b* values of all 252 generic shear wall structures plotted as a

function of T1 in the log-log domain. A linear regression is also fit to the data and

indicates that the b* value is approximately 11 for structures with T1 = 0.2 s and

decreases to approximately 4 when T1 = 1.6 s. As seen in Figure 7.34 there is a

considerable amount of scatter about the regression, which is reflected by the correlation

coefficient of = -0.65 (or, equivalently, R2 = 2 = 0.42). Compared to the generic MRF

structures, the generic shear wall structures generally have a higher b* value for a given

value of T1, although the shear walls structures typically have a greater number of stories

than the MRF structures for a given T1.

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 278

Figure 7.34: b* value associated with the minimum dispersion of Saavg(a, b) using

arithmetic period spacing as a function of T1 for the generic shear wall structures.

Other trends between the value of b* and structural properties (e.g., strength and post-

yield structural component parameters) are examined. Though the relationship between

b* and structural properties appears to be most significantly influenced by the

fundamental period of the structure, a trend between R and b* is also observed. For a

given number of stories and a given fundamental period, the b* value generally increases

with increasing values of R. In particular, it was observed that systems with R = 1.5

could have b* values up to 50% less, on average, than systems with R = 3.0 or 6.0 (the

other two values of R that were used for the generic shear wall structures). The disparity

in b* values is most notable for the 8-story structures, which can be observed in Figure

7.33 as there are generally two distinct clusters of b* values within a period bin for the 8-

story structures. The disparity in b* values decreases as number of stories increases,

which is also reflected in Figure 7.33 as the variability of b* values within a period bin

decreases with increasing number of stories.

computing Saavg, the difference between the dispersion on the collapse intensities

computed using Saavg(a*, b*) (i.e., the overall minimum dispersion for a given structure)

versus Saavg(a, b) for given values of a and b is computed for each of the 252 generic

shear wall structures. The mean value of this difference for all 252 structures is shown in

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 279

Figure 7.35, which shows a contour plot of the difference in dispersion as a function of

the a and b values used to compute Saavg(a, b). Figure 7.35(a) presents the results when

the difference is computed in absolute terms (e.g., lnSaAvg(a,b) - lnSaAvg(a*,b*)), and Figure

7.35(b) presents the results when the absolute difference is normalized by the value of

lnSaAvg(a*,b*). The latter case essentially represents a percent difference and is used

because the overall minimum dispersion varies between structures from lnSaAvg(a*,b*) =

0.09 for one of the 4-story structures to lnSaAvg(a*,b*) = 0.25 for one of the 16-story

structures. Both plots in Figure 7.35 indicate that a = 0 and b = 6 are convenient values to

use when computing Saavg(a, b) as these values show the smallest difference, on average,

from the absolute minimum dispersion that can be calculated for a given structure using

Saavg. The absolute difference is on the order of 0.05 lnSaAvg units when using a = 0 and b

= 6 as seen in Figure 7.35(a), and the relative difference is on the order of 0.3, or 30%, as

seen in Figure 7.35(b).

Figure 7.35: Contour plot showing the mean value, based on the 252 generic shear wall

structures, of the difference between the dispersion on the collapse intensities computed

using Saavg(a*, b*) versus Saavg(a, b) as a function of a and b for arithmetic period

spacing: (a) difference in absolute terms; (b) difference normalized by the dispersion

based on Saavg(a*, b*).

Figure 7.36 is used to investigate how the efficiency (as measured by the dispersion of

the collapse intensities) of Saavg(0, b) is affected when b is calculated using the regression

with T1 shown in Figure 7.34 (denoted as b:reg) versus the period-independent

recommendation of b = 6 and how these compare to the efficiency of Saavg(a*, b*).

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 280

Figure 7.36(a) is a scatter plot comparing the value of lnSaAvg(a*,b*) to lnSaAvg(0,b:reg) for

each of the 252 generic shear wall structures. Many points in Figure 7.36(a) lie on or near

the x = y line, which indicates that the regression is generally effective at predicting a b

value that, when used with a = 0, will give a dispersion that is essentially the same to the

overall minimum dispersion for a given structure. This is reinforced by that fact that the

point denoting the mean dispersion for all structures is close to the x = y line. Some

points, particularly those where lnSaAvg(a*,b*) 0.1, lie far from the x = y line, which

may be expected due to the scatter between b* and b:reg shown in Figure 7.34. These

structures tend to be 4-story structures with the least ductile structural components and

the smallest R factors. The period-independent values of a = 0 and b = 6 produce more

scatter with respect to lnSaAvg(a*,b*), as shown in Figure 7.36(b), compared to using a = 0

and b = b:reg. Figure 7.36(c) compares lnSaAvg(0,3.5) to lnSaAvg(0,b:reg), and it is seen that

computing b using the regression versus a period-independent value of b = 6 generally

leads to equal or smaller dispersion as most points, including the mean point, lie on or

above the x = y line. The absolute difference in the dispersion when b is computed

from the regression versus using the period-independent value of b = 6 is generally small;

however, for nearly a fifth of the generic shear wall structures using the period-

independent value of b = 6 increases the dispersion by at least 25% compared to the value

computed using b:reg. These structures are generally the same 4-story structures with the

least ductile structural components and the smallest R factors for which the value of

lnSaAvg(0,b:reg) is significantly larger than lnSaAvg(a*,b*).

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 281

Figure 7.36: Scatter plot of dispersion in collapse intensities computed using Saavg with

arithmetic period spacing for the 252 generic shear wall structures for different

computations of Saavg(a, b): (a) Saavg(a*, b*) vs. Saavg(0, b:reg); (b) Saavg(a*, b*) vs.

Saavg(0, 6); (c) Saavg(0, 6) vs. Saavg(0, b:reg). Note that b:reg is the b value obtained from

the regression based on T1 shown in Figure 7.34.

Figure 7.37 presents contours of the dispersion of the collapse intensities as a function of

the a and b values used to compute Saavg(a, b) with logarithmic period spacing that are

representative of results for the 4-story structures (Figure 7.37(a)), the 8-story structures

(Figure 7.37(b)), the 12-story structures (Figure 7.37(c)), and the 16-story structures

(Figure 7.37(d)). As indicated by Figure 7.37(a) a* is generally 1 for the 4-story

structures and also for some of the 8-story structures. It was investigated whether

considering a values greater than 1 (i.e., only using periods greater than the fundamental

period of the system) would significantly reduce the dispersion relative to what was

found using a 1. Based on a sample of structures with a* = 1 (when a was constrained

to be 1), it was found that allowing a* to be greater than one did not generally result in

a significant reduction in dispersion. Figure 7.37 also indicates that the value of b*

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 282

generally decreases as the number of stories increases, which was also observed for the

MRF structures.

Figure 7.37: Contours of the dispersion (ln) of the collapse intensities as a function of the

a and b values used to compute Saavg(a, b) with logarithmic period spacing that are

representative of results for generic shear wall structures: (a) 4 story; (b) 8 story;

(c) 12 story; (d) 16 story.

The relationship of the a* and b* values with T1 are shown in Figure 7.38(a) and Figure

7.38(b), respectively. Both the a* and b* show a significant linear trend with T1 in the

log-log domain, as the correlation coefficients are approximately = -0.7 and -0.6,

respectively. Note that structures with T1 0.4 s are excluded from the regression

between a* and T1 as nearly all of these structures have a* = 1.

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 283

Figure 7.38: Relationship between the a* and b* values associated with the minimum

dispersion of Saavg(a, b) obtained using logarithmic period spacing and T1 for the 252

generic shear wall structures: (a) a* and T1; (b) b* and T1.

Figure 7.39 is used to investigate how the efficiency (as measured by the dispersion of

the collapse intensities) of Saavg(a, b) is affected when a and b are calculated using the

regression with T1 shown in Figure 7.38 (denoted as a:reg and b:reg, respectively) versus

the period-independent recommendation of a = 0.7 and b = 15 and how these compare to

the efficiency of Saavg(a*, b*). The values of a and b used for the period-independent

recommendation are the values that, on average based on the 252 generic shear wall

structures, result in the smallest difference between the overall minimum dispersion of a

given structure and the dispersion calculated using period-independent values of a and b.

Note that a maximum period of T = 10 s was used to compute Saavg even if bT1 exceeded

10 s (i.e., b for the period-independent recommendation was taken as the minimum of 15

and 10/T1), which means that for structures with T1 0.67 s Saavg is computed using

periods between 0.7T1 and 10 s. Figure 7.39(a) is a scatter plot comparing the value of

lnSaAvg(a*,b*) to lnSaAvg(a:reg,b:reg) while Figure 7.39(b) compares lnSaAvg(a*,b*) to lnSaAvg(0.7,15)

and Figure 7.39(c) compares lnSaAvg(0.7,15) to lnSaAvg(a:reg,b:reg). The dispersions computed

using the regression-based values of a and b are generally close to the overall minimum

dispersions; however, for some structures where lnSaAvg(a*,b*) 0.1, the regression-based

dispersions are significantly higher than the overall minimum as seen in Figure 7.39(a).

These structures tend to be 4-story structures with the least ductile structural components

and the smallest R factors, and observation was made regarding these structures when

considering arithmetic period spacing. The period-independent values of a = 0.7 and

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 284

compared to regression based-values. Figure 7.39(c) directly compares the dispersion

computed using the regression-based and period-independent a and b values, and it is

observed that the regression-based values generally lead to smaller dispersions, with an

average reduction of 6%.

Figure 7.39: Scatter plot of the dispersion in collapse intensities computed using Saavg

with logarithmic period spacing for the 252 generic shear wall structures for different

computations of Saavg(a, b): (a) Saavg(a*, b*) vs. Saavg(a:reg, b:reg); (b) Saavg(a*, b*) vs.

Saavg(0.7,15); (c) Saavg(0.7,15) vs. Saavg(a:reg, b:reg). Note that a:reg and b:reg are the a

and b values, respectively, obtained from the regression based on T1 shown in Figure

7.38.

Figure 7.40 compares the dispersion of collapse intensities computed using Saavg with

arithmetic versus logarithmic period spacing schemes for the 252 generic shear wall

structures. Figure 7.40(a) compares the overall minimum dispersion lnSaAvg(a*,b*), and it is

observed that there is generally not a significant difference in the value computed using

arithmetic versus logarithmic period spacing. Figure 7.40(b) compares the dispersion

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 285

computed using the period-independent a and b values previously recommended for use

with arithmetic and logarithmic spacing (i.e., Saavg(0.7, 15) for logarithmic spacing

versus Saavg(0, 6) for arithmetic spacing). It is observed that difference in the dispersions

computed using arithmetic versus logarithmic period spacing is not significant, on

average. The dispersions computed using the period-independent a and b values (for

either period spacing scheme) are generally higher than those computed using the

regression-based values, which are shown in Figure 7.40(c). The dispersions computed

using the regression-based values are generally not significantly different for logarithmic

versus arithmetic period spacing. It should be noted that the results presented here are

based on sampling spectral values at 100 periods within a given period range but that

when only 10 periods were used, the results did not change significantly.

Figure 7.40: Comparison of the dispersion, lnSaAvg(a,b), achieved with logarithmic versus

arithmetic period spacing for the 252 generic shear wall structures using: (a) the overall

minimum dispersion; (b) period-independent (rigid) recommendations of Saavg(0.7, 15)

for logarithmic spacing versus Saavg(0, 6) for arithmetic spacing; (c) regression-based

values of Saavg(a:reg, b:reg). Note that a:reg and b:reg are the a and b values,

respectively, obtained from the regressions based on T1 shown in Figure 7.34 for

arithmetic spacing and in Figure 7.38 for logarithmic spacing. Also note that for

arithmetic spacing a:reg = 0.

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 286

This chapter explored how the range, number, and spacing (i.e., arithmetic versus

logarithmic) of periods used to compute Saavg influences the effectiveness of this

intensity measure (IM), with a primary focus on the impact these variables have on the

efficiency of the IM, which is measured by the lognormal standard deviation, or

dispersion, of the collapse intensities.

The effect of period range on the efficiency of Saavg was investigated using collapse data

from a large number of structures including generic SDOF systems, generic moment-

resisting frame (MRF) systems, reinforced concrete (RC) MRF systems, and generic

shear wall systems. Let Saavg(a, b) denote the value of Saavg computed using a period

range between aT1 and bT1, where a and b are non-negative constants such that a b

and T1 is the fundamental period of the structure. In these studies, values of a between 0

and 1 and values of b between 1 and 10/T1 were considered (i.e., the lower limit of the

period range was between 0 and T1, and the upper limit was between T1 and 10 s). A limit

of 10/T1 was placed on the b value for practical reasons, primarily due to a general lack of

ground motion prediction equations that predict spectral values at periods longer than

10 s that permit the computation of seismic hazard data needed for collapse (and other

structural response-related) risk assessments and because spectral ordinates at periods

longer than 10 s are typically strongly affected by baseline correction, high-pass filtering

and other record processing modifications applied to ground motion recordings.

For the vast majority of structures examined, the efficiency of Saavg was much more

sensitive to the b value (i.e., the upper limit of the period range) than to the a value (i.e.,

the lower limit of the period range). Let a* and b* be the optimum values of a and b,

respectively, such that Saavg(a*, b*) produces the minimum dispersion in the collapse

intensities in a given structure under a given set of ground motions. It was observed that

the values of a* and b* or, more generally, the period ranges that tended to produce the

smallest dispersions in collapse intensities were primarily a function of the structural

system (i.e., MRF versus shear wall) and of the fundamental period of the system. Other

structural properties such as strength and ductility were also observed to affect the period

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 287

range in some cases; however, these properties had a much smaller effect on the values of

a* and b* than changes in the structural system or in the fundamental period.

periods was investigated for a set of generic, relatively ductile SDOF systems with

periods between T = 0.1 s and 4.0 s. It was found that there was a benefit to including

periods less than the fundamental period in the period range used to compute Saavg as the

minimum dispersion is achieved at a values less than 1 for all the systems examined. This

may be a counterintuitive result for those who subscribe to the hypothesis that accounting

for spectral ordinates at periods shorter than the fundamental period is necessary to

account for higher mode effects, and therefore for an SDOF system there would be no

need or benefit to including periods to the left of T1 when computing Saavg; however,

results clearly indicate that including information about spectral ordinates at periods

smaller than the fundamental period leads to reductions in dispersions even for SDOF

systems (which do not have higher modes of vibration). As discussed in Section 5.6, it is

believed that the reduction in dispersion seen when including periods less the

fundamental period in the spectral averaging range results from the fact that the response

spectrum is a reflection of acceleration pulses in the ground motion, and even pulses that

manifest themselves in the spectrum at periods less than the fundamental period can

affect the nonlinear response of the system. As discussed in Chapter 5, using an average

spectral value also minimizes the role that the initial conditions play in the response of

the elastic system, which is important as a nonlinear system will, in general, not have the

same initial conditions as the elastic system and can therefore respond very differently

than the elastic system to the same ground motion segment. For this reason, it makes

sense to take the average spectral value using periods smaller and larger than the

fundamental period as neighboring systems (i.e., systems with periods similar to the

fundamental period) can represent how the elastic system may have responded given

different initial conditions. Additional details regarding this reasoning are provided in

Sections 5.4 and 5.5.

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 288

recommendations for the range of periods (i.e. values of a and b) to use when computing

Saavg in these types of structures and to investigate the effect of period spacing when

computing Saavg. Structures used in this section include 396 generic MRF structures and

252 generic shear wall structures analyzed by Zareian and Krawinkler (2009, Chapter 4)

and 30 modern RC MRF structures analyzed by Haselton and Deierlein (2007, Table 3-

3). The generic MRF and generic shear wall structures are either 4, 8, 12, or 16 stories,

and the fundamental periods of these structures are a function of the number of stories

(0.10N, 0.15N, or 0.20N for the MRF structures and 0.005N, 0.075N, or 0.100N for

the shear wall structures) and vary from T1 = 0.4 s to 3.2 s for the MRF structures and

from T1 = 0.2 s to 1.6 s for the shear wall structures. The shear walls are governed by

flexural behavior and assumed to fail in flexure, not shear. The 30 modern RC MRF

structures vary from 1 to 20 stories with fundamental periods ranging from T1 = 0.42 s to

2.63 s. Additional information about these structures is provided in Appendix B and in

the sources previously cited.

The average value of the minimum dispersion in collapse intensities achieved for a given

structure was approximately lnSaAvg(a*,b*) = 0.20 for the generic MRF structures and

lnSaAvg(a*,b*) = 0.16 for both the RC MRF and the generic shear wall structures. The use of

Saavg when computed using an optimum range of periods Saavg(a*, b*) led to significant

reductions in the dispersion of collapse intensities compared to those computed using

Sa(T1): the average reduction was nearly 50% for the generic MRF structures and over

60% for the RC MRF and generic shear wall structures. For reference, the average

dispersion of the collapse intensities computed using Sa(T1) was lnSa(T1) = 0.38 for the

generic MRF structures, lnSa(T1) = 0.44 for the RC MRF structures, and lnSa(T1) = 0.48 for

the generic shear wall structures.

Overall, it was found that the value of lnSaAvg(a*,b*) for a given structure was generally the

same whether arithmetically or logarithmically spaced periods were used to compute

Saavg; however, the values of a* and b* (i.e., the period ranges) that produced the

minimum dispersion, or more generally, the period ranges that resulted in dispersions

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 289

relatively close to the minimum dispersion, were significantly different for arithmetic

versus logarithmic spacing. The following paragraphs discuss trends in the dispersion as

a function of period range that were observed for different structures and for different

period spacing schemes.

When using arithmetic period spacing, it was observed that the dispersion of collapse

intensities was more affected by changes in the b value (i.e., the upper limit of the period

range) than the a value used to compute Saavg. It was also observed that the optimum

value of b* associated with the minimum dispersion for a given structure was negatively

correlated with the fundamental period. In the log-log domain the correlation coefficient

was on the order of = -0.6 and nearly -1.0 for the generic MRF and RC MRF structures,

respectively, for T1 > 0.42 s and on the order of = -0.7 for the generic shear wall

structures. The increased correlation for the RC MRF structures is thought to be the result

of the similarity in design procedures used for these buildings (all were designed using

the same building codes and standards) versus the generic MRF and shear wall structures,

which were developed to investigate the sensitivity of building response to structural

parameters (e.g., strength and structural component properties) and encompass a wide

range of structural parameter values. Linear regressions were used to develop period-

dependent b values by fitting a straight line to the relationship between b* and T1 in the

log-log domain. For the generic MRF structures, the period-dependent value of b

predicted by the regression decreases from approximately 4.1 to 2.5 as the period

increases from T1 = 0.6 s to 3.2 s. For the RC MRF structures, the period-dependent value

of b predicted by the regression decreases from approximately 5.7 to 2.6 as the period

increases from T1 = 0.56 s to 2.63 s. The regressions for the generic and RC MRF

structures intersect near T1 = 2 s, where b is approximately 3. For the generic shear wall

structures, the period-dependent value of b predicted by the regression decreases from

approximately 10.9 to 4.0 as the period increases from T1 = 0.2 s to 1.6 s. For comparison

purposes, the values of b predicted by the regressions at T1 = 1.0 s are approximately 3.5,

4.3, and 5.1 for the generic MRF, RC MRF, and generic shear wall structures,

respectively.

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 290

When Saavg was computed using arithmetic period spacing with a = 0 and period-

dependent b values determined by a linear regression of b* and T1 in the log-log domain,

it was found that the resulting dispersion in collapse intensities was generally very close

to lnSaAvg(a*,b*), the minimum dispersion computed for a given structure using the

optimum period range, with an average difference between 0.01 and 0.03 lnSaAvg units for

the different structure sets. The a value of 0 was chosen as it minimized the average

difference between the overall minimum dispersion, lnSaAvg(a*,b*), and the computed

dispersion, lnSaAvg(0,b:breg); however, the dispersion was generally not very sensitive to the

a value and similar results were achieved using a = 0.2. As an alternative to computing

period-dependent b values based on a regression with T1, a period-independent value of b

was considered (i.e., one that was constant for a given set of structures). It was found that

period-independent values of b = 3 for the generic MRFs, b = 3.5 for the RC MRFs, and

b = 6 for the generic shear walls generally minimized the average difference between the

computed dispersions and the overall minimum dispersion. It was seen that the average

difference between the two dispersions was generally very small, as the average

difference was between 0.02 and 0.04 lnSaAvg units for the different structure sets. In

terms of the difference between the dispersions computed using the period-dependent

versus the period-independent b value, it was found that the period-dependent b value

generally leads to slightly smaller dispersion values, with the average difference less than

0.01 lnSaAvg units for the generic MRF structures, 0.02 lnSaAvg units for the generic shear

wall structures, and 0.03 lnSaAvg units for the RC MRF structures.

When using logarithmic period spacing, it was observed that the dispersion of collapse

intensities was sensitive to both the a and the b values (i.e., both the lower and upper

limits of the period range) used to compute Saavg. Both the optimum a* and b* values

associated with the minimum dispersion for a given structure were negatively correlated

with the fundamental period. In the log-log domain the correlation coefficient between b*

and T1 ranged from approximately = -0.6 for the generic shear wall structures to

approximately = -0.8 for the RC MRF structures, with the generic MRFs falling within

this range. Linear regressions were also used to develop period-dependent b values by

fitting a straight line to the relationship between b* and T1 in the log-log domain. For the

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 291

decreases from approximately 8.9 to 3.7 as the period increases from T1 = 0.6 s to 3.2 s.

For the RC MRF structures, the period-dependent value of b predicted by the regression

decreases from approximately 8.3 to 3.8 as the period increases from T1 = 0.42 s to

2.63 s. The regressions for the generic and RC MRF structures do not intersect within the

period ranges used for regression; however, the difference in values decreases as T1

increases, with b for the generic MRF structures being approximately 25% larger at T1 =

0.6 s and approximately 10% larger at T1 = 2.63 s. For the generic shear wall structures,

the period-dependent value of b predicted by the regression decreases from

approximately 19.2 to 5.9 as the period increases from T1 = 0.2 s to 1.6 s. For comparison

purposes, the period-dependent values of b predicted by the regressions at T1 = 1.0 s are

approximately 6.8, 5.7, and 7.7 for the generic MRF, RC MRF, and generic shear wall

structures, respectively.

As previously mentioned, the values of a* are also negatively correlated with T1 when

using logarithmic period spacing. The correlation coefficient between a* and T1 in the

log-log domain is approximately = -0.7 for the RC MRF structures and for the generic

shear wall structures with T1 0.6 s but was only on the order of = -0.2 for the generic

MRF structures with T1 0.6 s. For the generic MRF structures, the period-dependent

value of a predicted by the regression decreases from approximately 0.3 to 0.2 as the

period increases from T1 = 0.4 s to 3.2 s. For the RC MRF structures, the period-

dependent value of a predicted by the regression decreases from approximately 0.9 to 0.3

as the period increases from T1 = 0.56 s to 2.63 s. For the generic shear wall structures,

the period-dependent value of a predicted by the regression decreases from

approximately 0.9 to 0.3 as the period increases from T1 = 0.6 s to 1.6 s. For comparison

purposes, the period-dependent values of a predicted by the regressions at T1 = 1.0 s are

approximately 0.2, 0.6, and 0.5 for the generic MRF, RC MRF, and generic shear wall

structures, respectively.

When Saavg was computed using logarithmic period spacing with the period range

defined by period-dependent a and b values, it was found that the resulting dispersions in

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 292

collapse intensities were generally very close to lnSaAvg(a*,b*), the minimum dispersion

computed for a given structure using the optimum period range, with an average

difference between 0.01 and 0.02 lnSaAvg units for the different structure sets. As an

alternative to computing period-dependent a and b values, period-independent values of a

and b were considered (i.e., ones that were constant for a given set of structures). It was

found that the period-independent (a, b) pairs that generally minimized the average

difference between the computed dispersions and the overall minimum dispersion when

using logarithmic period spacing were (0.2, 9) for the generic MRF structures, (0.4, 9) for

the RC MRF structures, and (0.7, 15) for the generic shear wall structures. As previously

noted, periods longer than 10 s were not used to compute Saavg even if bT1 exceeded

10 s. This means that the b value determined by the regression was only used for generic

MRF and RC MRF structures with T1 1.1 s (approximately one-third of the structures in

each set) and for generic shear wall structures with T1 1.5 s (all structures except the 16-

story structures with T1 = 1.6 s); otherwise, the upper limit of the period range used to

compute Saavg was 10 s. The dispersion computed using period-independent values of a

and b was generally close to overall minimum dispersion of a given structure, with an

average difference between 0.01 and 0.04 lnSaAvg units for the different structure sets. In

terms of the difference between the dispersions computed using period-dependent versus

period-independent values of a and b, it was found that using period-dependent values

generally leads to slightly smaller dispersion values, with the average difference being

negligible for the generic MRF structures and equal to approximately 0.01 lnSaAvg units

for the generic shear wall structures and 0.02 lnSaAvg units for the RC MRF structures.

The optimum values of a and b that led to the minimum dispersion in the collapse

intensities were significantly higher for logarithmic spacing than for arithmetic spacing.

This results from the fact that logarithmic spacing samples more heavily from the lower

half of the period range. The increase in the a value for logarithmic spacing is thought to

be the result of the fact that for medium to long period structures, the parts of the ground

motion that control the response of short-period elastic SDOF systems (and produce the

short-period spectral ordinates) are generally not the same as those controlling the

response of longer period systems. Thus, there is a need to avoid over sampling in this

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 293

period region, which is why the value of a increases from the value of 0 that produced

small dispersions when using arithmetic period spacing to values of at least 0.2 for

logarithmic period spacing. In fact, it was often observed that including the very short

period ordinates (T < 0.1T1) could have a detrimental effect on the dispersion when

using logarithmic period spacing. The increase in the b value may be the related to the

increase in a, as increasing the b value for a given a value will reduce the concentration

of samples at shorter periods.

a and b (which depend on the period spacing scheme and structure class) to compute

Saavg, logarithmic spacing generally results in a decreased dispersion in the collapse

intensities compared to arithmetic period spacing; however, the difference is, on average,

very small. For the generic MRF structures, the recommended period-independent values

of a and b led to dispersions that were 0.02 lnSaAvg units greater, on average, for

arithmetic spacing compared to logarithmic spacing and 0.01 lnSaAvg units greater, on

average, for the RC MRF and generic shear walls structures.

Given that the differences in the dispersion due to period spacing scheme are, on average,

very small when using either the period-independent or period-independent

recommended values of a and b (which depend on the period spacing scheme and

structure class), one might prefer to use arithmetic period spacing because the

recommended b value for a given structure class is generally much lower for arithmetic

spacing versus logarithmic spacing. Using a lower b value reduces potential issues

associated with a lack of seismic hazard data at long periods, the maximum usable period

of a record, and record processing effects that may significantly affect the values of

spectral ordinates at long periods. The dispersion computed with arithmetic period

spacing is also primarily a function of only the b value whereas the dispersion computed

with logarithmic period spacing can be sensitive to both the a and the b value,

particularly when either value is less than a* or b*, respectively (the a or b value,

respectively, associated with the minimum dispersion of a given structure).

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 294

All results presented here are based on computing Saavg using 100 points/periods within a

given period range. The sensitivity of the results to the number of periods was studied,

and it was found that the results were not significantly affected when only 10

points/periods were used to compute Saavg.

Of the structures studied here, short period structures (i.e., those with T1 < 0.5 s) were

often observed to have different trends than those with T1 > 0.5 s in terms of how the

period range used to compute Saavg affected the dispersion of the collapse intensities.

This result is not entirely unexpected as other studies (e.g., Miranda 2001) have also

found the inelastic response of short period structures to be distinct from those of medium

and long period structures. This is related to the fact that short period systems (1) often

have periods significantly shorter than the duration of significant acceleration pulses; and

(2) undergo many more vibration cycles over a given time period than longer period

structures, and are therefore are more sensitive to cyclic deterioration and more likely to

experience ratcheting lateral deformations. The difference in the period range associated

with the smallest dispersion of a given structure was particularly evident for 4-story

generic shear walls, which had periods of T1 = 0.2 s, 0.3 s, or 0.4 s, with the smallest

ductility-dependent strength reduction factors (R = 1.5 versus 3.0 or 6.0) and the least

ductile structural components. These structures tended to have b* values significantly

smaller than the other 4-story generic shear walls.

It was also observed that the b value that produced the lowest dispersion for a given

structure was generally very dependent on the structure type. The generic MRF and RC

MRF structures had similar recommended period-independent b values (3 or 3.5 for

arithmetic spacing and 9 for logarithmic spacing) while the recommended period-

independent b value for the generic shear wall structures (6 for arithmetic spacing and 15

for logarithmic spacing) was significantly greater than that for the MRF structures. This

may be the result of fundamental differences in the way these systems respond to ground

motions (e.g., MRF systems tend to concentrate story drift demands in a few stories,

particularly for large levels of inelastic deformation, while shear wall systems tend to

have more uniform distributions of story drifts over the height of the structure) and the

Chapter 7: Average Spectral Acceleration (Saavg): Optimal Period Ranges 295

fact that the shear wall systems generally have more stories than the MRF structures for a

given fundamental period. These results suggest that different structural systems (e.g.,

braced frames and dual systems) need to be explored with regard to the effect of period

ranges on the efficiency of collapse intensities measured by Saavg before general

recommendations can be made. It should also be noted that the maximum fundamental

periods studied were T1 = 3.2 s for MRF structures and T1 = 1.6 s for generic shear wall

structures, so caution should be exercised when extrapolating these findings to longer

periods. Additionally, the generic shear wall structures used here were assumed to be

governed by flexural behavior, so the findings may not apply to shear wall structures that

fail in shear or other modes of failure (e.g., a combination of shear and flexure, out-of-

plane buckling, etc.).

Chapter 8

8.1 Overview

One of the most important objectives of earthquake engineering is providing protection

against structural collapse. Until recently this protection against collapse was not

explicitly quantified but instead was assumed to be sufficient for structures designed to

standards specified by building codes. Advances in computational power and the

development of models that can predict the behavior of structural components through

failure have made collapse risk assessment possible. With the advent of performance-

based earthquake engineering, which considers uncertainties in the seismic hazard and

structural response and seeks to engineer structures so that they achieve a desired level of

performance, collapse risk assessment has become increasingly important. In fact, it is a

necessary component of the performance-based earthquake engineering assessment

methodology as the probability of collapse conditioned on ground motion intensity is

required to compute expected economic losses, downtime and casualties resulting from a

seismic event.

This dissertation focuses on seismic collapse risk assessment of structures and evaluates

the effects of intensity measure (IM) selection, which is used to quantify the seismic

hazard and predict the structural response, and computational approach on the computed

risk. The main objectives of this research are:

(1) To evaluate different metrics for quantifying the collapse risk and to describe the

advantages and disadvantages of each metric.

(2) To examine and quantify the uncertainty in the collapse fragility, which describes

the probability of collapse conditioned on ground motion intensity, and in the

mean annual frequency of collapse (c) due to the number of ground motions

considered in structural response analysis.

(3) To develop efficient and reliable procedures for estimating the collapse risk.

296

Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions 297

(4) To explain why certain IMs are able to predict structural response better (i.e.,

more efficiently) than others.

(5) To evaluate the performance of different IMs with respect to predicting the

collapse risk. Particular focus is given to the efficiency and sufficiency of the IM

and how these properties affect the computed collapse risk.

(6) To study spectral acceleration averaged over a period range (Saavg) as an IM and

provide recommendations on the period ranges that maximize the efficiency of

the IM for different structures.

The following sub-sections summarize the main conclusions of this work and are

organized by topic. Some limitations and suggestions for future work associated with

specific findings are discussed, although a more general discussion of the limitations and

future work are presented in subsequent sections.

Numerical simulation of structural collapse and the quantification of collapse risk is an

issue that has garnered significant attention from researchers in recent years. Chapter 2

presents a detailed review of the relevant research and describes two methods for

estimating collapse risk: a fully probabilistic method that does not use IMs and an IM-

based method. The latter is used throughout this work and is currently widely used due

to, among other reasons, its reduced computational effort. Different metrics used to

quantify the collapse risk were described, and the advantages and disadvantages of each

were compared. It was shown that c (or the related probability of collapse over a given

period of time) is the preferred metric because it can be used to directly compare the risks

of different structures in different sites. The reasons for this is that, unlike other collapse

risk metrics, it combines information about both the seismic hazard at the site and the

structural response at different levels of ground motion intensity, and therefore it takes

into account differences in the seismic hazard and collapse fragility at all intensities. For

these reasons, c (or the related probability of collapse over a given period of time) is

Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions 298

used to quantify the collapse risk throughout this document. Selected simplified methods

for assessing the collapse risk of structures were also presented.

Chapter 3 presents a complete collapse risk assessment analysis using a 4-story steel

moment-resting frame (MRF) structure as a case study. The pseudo-spectral acceleration

at the first mode period of the structure, Sa(T1), is used as the IM. Note that 5%-damped

spectral ordinates are used throughout this work unless noted otherwise. In addition to

evaluating the collapse risk of the case study, the deaggregation of the collapse risk is

presented, illustrating that intensities in the lower half of the collapse fragility curve

contribute to the majority of the collapse risk for this IM. An analysis on the influence of

the shape of the seismic hazard curve, which can vary between geographic regions, on the

collapse risk is conducted. Seismic hazard curves from six locations throughout the

United States are used, and the analysis demonstrates the importance of considering

multiple intensity levels when assessing the collapse risk as the difference between the

seismic hazards of two different sites can vary significantly with the intensity level.

Furthermore, it is found that for all cases considered, despite significant differences in the

shapes of the seismic hazard curves, the most significant contribution to the collapse risk

(the peak of the collapse risk deaggregation curve) occurs at an intensity in the lower half

of the collapse fragility curve.

collapse

The statistical uncertainty in the collapse fragility and the mean annual frequency of

collapse (c) is addressed in Chapter 4. In particular, the uncertainty associated with the

number of ground motions used to predict the structural response is quantified, and

theoretical confidence intervals based on the binomial probability distribution are

calculated for the probability of collapse conditioned on ground motion intensity using

the Wilson score confidence intervals. The uncertainty in the collapse fragility and c as a

function of the number of ground motions used are determined for the case study

presented in Chapter 3 using bootstrap techniques, and it is demonstrated that using a

Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions 299

small number of ground motions can produce collapse risk estimates with significant

uncertainties.

A method for estimating c by estimating the collapse fragility at only two intensity levels

was proposed. The premise of the proposed method is that for a given amount of

computational effort (as measured by the total number of nonlinear response history

analyses conducted), a better estimate of the collapse fragility can be obtained by using

more ground motions at fewer intensities compared to using more intensity levels but

fewer ground motions at each, as has typically been done in previous studies. One

advantage of the proposed method is that more attention can be paid to selection and

scaling of the ground motions to the hazard levels associated with the two intensity levels

versus an incremental dynamic analysis method that uses the same ground motions at all

intensity levels. The two intensity levels used to estimate the collapse fragility curve are

determined based on their cumulative contributions to c, as computed from a

deaggregation of c by intensity. Using an initial estimate of the collapse fragility curve,

the initial c deaggregation curve is constructed and used to identify the first intensity at

which response history analyses are conducted. The probability of collapse at that

intensity level is estimated from the results of the response history analyses, and the

collapse fragility and c deaggregation curves are updated each time a point on the

collapse fragility curve is estimated.

The ability of the proposed method to significantly reduce both the computational effort

and level of uncertainty in the c estimate was demonstrated using a case study. It was

shown that the c estimate was typically not very sensitive to the initial estimate of the

collapse fragility curve. For the case study structure, the recommended intensity levels

are those associated with a 90% and a 20% cumulative contribution to c, respectively.

Limited studies suggest that the optimum set of intensity levels may depend on the

particular collapse fragility curve and seismic hazard curve being considered, so further

investigation in this area is warranted.

Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions 300

Several approaches were investigated to examine the relationship between spectral shape

and nonlinear structural response, and the results are presented in Chapter 5. By

examining the equation of motion, time-domain features were identified that give rise to

significant inelastic displacements. Specifically, it was found that acceleration pulses

with significant incremental velocity (the area under the ground acceleration history

between zero-crossings) combined with movement of the system in a direction opposite

the ground acceleration during the duration of the pulse lead to large inelastic excursions.

the response of a series of structures to individual half-sine pulses and the resulting

displacement response spectra were examined. It is shown that the displacement spectrum

of an at-rest system subjected to a half-sine acceleration pulse of arbitrary duration and

area can provide information on the pulse itself, such as the duration td and the amplitude

of the pulse. For example, a sharp increase in spectral displacement ordinates is observed

over the period range between approximately td and 3td.

Different states of the system (i.e., the displacement and velocity) at the time of the

arrival of the critical pulse, referred to as the initial conditions of the system, were

considered, and it was shown that they can significantly affect how a system responds to

a pulse, particularly when td << T, the period of the system. The largest responses

typically occur under the initial conditions that maximize the amount of time that the

system moves in the direction opposite the ground acceleration, something that is

consistent with the observations from the analysis on the equation of motion.

The peak displacement response to a ground motion was also considered and correlated

to spectral shape. Smooth spectral regions, especially smooth peaks, were found to occur

when a single segment of the ground acceleration controls the peak response of a period

range. Sharp changes in spectral shape, such as a V-shaped valley, typically occur

when there is a change in the controlling ground acceleration history segment. Both

elastic and inelastic systems were considered, and it was shown that their peak responses

Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions 301

and spectral shapes can differ significantly. This is primarily attributed to the different

initial conditions at the beginning of a given ground motion segment in the inelastic

system relative to the elastic system caused by a previous yielding in the system.

The spectral shape of damaging records was also examined using results from the case

study of Chapter 3. Damaging records are defined as those with low collapse intensities

Sa(T1)col. It was found that the spectral shape of damaging records is, generally, distinct

from that of more benign records. Specifically, damaging records typically exhibit

sharply increasing spectral displacements for T > T1. The examination of selected

damaging records as well as displacement histories of the case study structure yielded

analogous results to previous approaches, namely that (1) the shape of the spectrum can

provide information about underlying pulses in the ground motion; and (2) pulses with

significant incremental velocities can cause large displacement excursions, particularly if

the system moves in the same direction as the momentum imparted by the pulse.

The relationship between spectral shape and the collapse intensity of the record was also

discussed, and three measures of spectral shape were evaluated with respect to their

ability to predict the collapse intensity. These measures included a direct measure of

spectral shape, called SaRatio, and indirect measures of spectral shape and , which

measure the difference between the spectral ordinate or peak ground velocity (PGV) of

the ground motion and the mean prediction from a ground motion prediction equation

(GMPE). SaRatio, which is defined as the ratio of Sa(T1) to the geometric mean of

pseudo-spectral acceleration values over a certain period range (Saavg), performed

significantly better than the other spectral shape parameters. This was attributed to the

fact that it directly measures the spectrum of a record over a range of periods, as opposed

to indirect spectral shape measures that only consider a single spectral ordinate (or a

linear combination of an ordinate and PGV in the case of ) and measure the ordinate(s)

with reference to a GMPE (which provides the average ordinate based on many records).

Since seismic hazard deaggregations do not currently provide information about SaRatio,

a method for estimating a target SaRatio value was proposed. In this method, SaRatio is

Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions 302

computed from the spectrum of an event dominating the seismic hazard or a mean causal

event. Two approximate methods that account for the effect of SaRatio in collapse risk

assessment were discussed. One is appropriate for use with the results from incremental

dynamic analyses while the other is appropriate when estimating the probability of

collapse conditioned on the ground motion intensity.

Chapter 6 evaluates the performance of different IMs in predicting the collapse risk of a

structure. The IMs are evaluated with respect to desirable properties of an IM including

efficiency, sufficiency, the robustness of the collapse risk estimate, and the ability to

compute hazard information. The geometric mean of the pseudo-spectral acceleration

over a period range (Saavg) was shown to be consistently and significantly more efficient

than Sa(T1) at predicting the collapse intensity of a ground motion. Case studies of nearly

700 moment-resisting frame and shear wall structures showed that Saavg reduced the

dispersion in the collapse intensities by over 40%, on average, compared to Sa(T1). The

sufficiency of Saavg with respect to magnitude, distance and spectral shape measures was

evaluated using the same case studies, and Saavg was generally shown to be sufficient

with respect to these parameters.

The generally superior performance of Saavg compared to Sa(T1) was attributed to that

fact that Saavg accounts directly for spectral shape features and indirectly for the

underlying pulses or ground motion segments that cause damage, whereas Sa(T1)

measures the elastic response at only a single period, which can be heavily influenced by

the initial conditions at the onset of a critical ground motion pulse. Stated somewhat

differently, the response spectrum can be viewed as a signature of the duration and

intensity of individual pulses or pulse segments within the ground acceleration combined

with the initial conditions/state of the system on the onset of the pulse. Saavg

incorporates more information about the ground motion by taking the average value of

the signature over several points as opposed to Sa(T1), which takes the value of the

signature at a single period and therefore can be strongly affected by the state of the

Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions 303

system at the onset of the pulse. The additional information about the record that Saavg

incorporates is what makes it a more efficient measure of collapse intensity than Sa(T1).

Obtaining a hazard curve for Saavg based on existing GMPEs that predict spectral

acceleration values was discussed. The performance of different IMs in predicting the

collapse risk was evaluated and compared using a case study structure and seven different

ground motion sets. Sa(T1), Saavg, and PGV were the IMs considered. Compared to Saavg,

both Sa(T1) and PGV generally produced higher and significantly more varied (i.e., less

robust) collapse risk estimates among the different ground motion sets. The higher

collapse risk estimates were attributed primarily to the decreased efficiency of these IMs

(i.e., the increased dispersion in structural response) compared to Saavg and, in the case of

Sa(T1), the increased dispersion in the value predicted by the GMPE. That is, compared

to Sa(T1) and PGV, Saavg was found to be predicted with less or comparable dispersion

from a GMPE perspective, to be a more efficient and reliable predictor of collapse, and to

produce collapse risk estimates that were significantly more robust (less variable) with

respect to the particular ground motions used to compute the structural response, even in

cases where the collapse risk estimates computed using Sa(T1) accounted for the spectral

shape of the records used. Though it may be theoretically possible to compute the same

(correct) collapse risk using any IM (see, e.g., Bradley 2012; Lin 2012; Lin et al.

2013ba), in practice collapse risk assessment involves using a limited number of ground

motions to estimate the structural response and, in some cases, there may be a lack of

available ground motions that are compatible with the ground motions expected at a

particular site. Because of these practical issues, there is a benefit to using an IM that is

an efficient predictor of structural response and sufficient with respect to ground motion

properties when assessing the collapse risk.

The relatively stable (i.e., robust) collapse risk estimates obtained across the ground

motion sets when using Saavg is an indicator of the sufficiency of this IM with respect to

various ground motion properties and suggests that collapse risk estimates are not

particularly sensitive to the ground motions used in structural response prediction when

using this IM. This implies that the careful record selection and/or modification of

Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions 304

structural response results required to obtain a good estimate of the collapse risk when

using Sa(T1) as the IM may not be required if Saavg is the IM. Additional studies are

needed to confirm this, however, as the results presented here are based on a single case

study.

Chapter 7 investigates how the period range used to compute Saavg affects the efficiency

of structural response predictions as measured by the dispersion of the collapse

intensities. Nearly 700 structures including SDOF systems and generic MRF, generic

shear wall, and reinforced concrete (RC) MRF systems are used to identify trends

between the optimum period range (i.e., that with the highest efficiency) and structural

properties such as T1 and structural system. Structures with fundamental periods between

T1 = 0.1 s and 3.2 s and between 1 and 20 stories were considered. Let Saavg(a, b) denote

the value of Saavg computed using a period range between aT1 and bT1, where a and b

are non-negative constants such that a b. Let a* and b* denote the values of a and b,

respectively, that are associated with the overall minimum dispersion computed for a

given structure using a given set of ground motions.

It was observed that the period ranges that tended to produce the smallest dispersions in

collapse intensities were primarily a function of the structural system (i.e., MRF versus

shear wall) and of the fundamental period of the system. With the exception of short

period structures (i.e., those with T1 < 0.5 s), it was observed that the value of b*

generally decreased as the fundamental period of the structure increased. The average

value of the minimum dispersion computed for a given structure was approximately

lnSaAvg(a*,b*) = 0.20 for the generic MRF structures and lnSaAvg(a*,b*) = 0.16 for both the RC

MRF and the generic shear wall structures. Compared to the dispersion computed using

Sa(T1), the dispersions computed using Saavg(a*, b*) represent average reductions of

nearly 50% for the generic MRF structures and over 60% for the RC MRF and generic

shear wall structures. It was observed that the spacing of periods (i.e., arithmetic versus

logarithmic) within the period range used to compute Saavg generally did not affect the

minimum dispersion of a given structure; however, the period range producing the

Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions 305

minimum dispersion was typically very different for each of the two period spacing

schemes.

When the periods used to compute Saavg are spaced arithmetically within the period

range, it was observed that the dispersion of collapse intensities was generally much more

sensitive to the b value than the a value. It was shown that using Saavg(0, 3) for the MRF

structures (i.e., using a period range between 0 and 3T1) and Saavg(0, 6) for the shear wall

structures (i.e., using a period range between 0 and 6T1) generally produced dispersions

that were close to the dispersion computed using Saavg(a*, b*) (i.e., the overall minimum

dispersion), with an average difference in dispersion less than 0.04 lnSaAvg units.

When the periods used to compute Saavg are spaced logarithmically within the period

range, it was observed that the dispersion of collapse intensities was sensitive to both the

a and the b values, particularly if the value of a and/or b was less than the value of a*

and/or b*, respectively. It was shown that using Saavg(0.2, 9) for the generic MRF

structures, Saavg(0.4, 9) for the RC MRF structures, and Saavg(0.7, 15) for the shear wall

structures generally produced dispersions that were close to the dispersion computed

using Saavg(a*, b*), with an average difference in dispersion less than 0.04 lnSaAvg units.

It should be noted that periods longer than 10 s were not used to compute Saavg even if

bT1 exceeded 10 s. This limit was imposed because of limitation associated with the

maximum usable period of recordings and the lack of GMPEs predicting spectral

ordinates at periods greater than 10 s.

When the period range (i.e., the a and b values) used to compute Saavg was determined

based on regressions of a* versus T1 and b* versus T1 (which were specific to the

structural system and period spacing scheme used), it was observed that a slight reduction

in the dispersion was achieved with respect to the dispersion calculated using the period-

independent values of a and b (e.g., using Saavg(0, 6) with arithmetically spaced periods

for the shear wall structures). The average difference in the dispersions produced by the

period-dependent versus the period-independent values of a and b was less than 0.03

Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions 306

lnSaAvg units. Given this relatively small difference it is recommended to use the period-

independent values of a and b when computing Saavg.

The values of a and b that led to the minimum dispersion in the collapse intensities were

significantly higher for logarithmic spacing than for arithmetic spacing. This results from

the fact that logarithmic spacing samples more heavily from the lower half of the period

range. The increase in the a value for logarithmic spacing is thought to be the result of the

fact that for medium to long period structures, the parts of the ground motion that control

the response of elastic SDOF systems (and produce the short-period spectral ordinates)

are generally not the same as those controlling the response of longer period systems.

Thus, there is a need to avoid over sampling in this period region, which is why the value

of a increases from the value of 0 that produced small dispersions when using arithmetic

period spacing to values of at least 0.2 for logarithmic period spacing. The increase in the

b value may be the related to the increase in a, as increasing the b value for a given a

value will lessen the concentration of samples at shorter periods.

a and b (which depend on the period spacing scheme and structure class) to compute

Saavg, logarithmic spacing generally results in a slightly decreased dispersion in the

collapse intensities compared to arithmetic period spacing, with an average difference of

0.02 lnSaAvg units or less. Given this small difference, one might prefer to use arithmetic

period spacing because the recommended b value for a given structural system is

generally much lower for arithmetic spacing versus logarithmic spacing. Using a lower b

value reduces potential issues associated with a lack of seismic hazard data at long

periods, the maximum usable period of a record, and record processing effects that may

affect the amplitude of spectral ordinates at long periods.

Regarding the different period ranges recommended for different structural systems, this

may be the result of fundamental differences in the way these systems respond to ground

motions (e.g., MRF systems tend to concentrate story drift demands in a few stories,

particularly for large levels of inelastic deformation, while shear wall systems tend to

Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions 307

have more uniform distributions of story drifts along the height of the building) and the

fact that for the structures considered the shear wall systems generally have more stories

than the MRF systems. These results suggest that different structural systems (e.g.,

braced frames or dual systems) need to be explored with regard to the effect of period

ranges on the efficiency of collapse intensities measured by Saavg before general

recommendations can be made. All results discussed here were based on computing Saavg

using 100 points/periods within a given period range. The sensitivity of the results to the

number of periods was studied, and it was found that the results were not significantly

affected when only 10 points/periods were used to compute Saavg.

A significant limitation of this work is that it is focused on collapse and does not directly

consider other levels or descriptions of structural response. The findings regarding the

effect of spectral shape on structural response, the efficiency and sufficiency of Saavg as

well as the robustness of risk estimates based on this IM and the recommended period

ranges for computing Saavg are all specific to collapse and may not apply to other

descriptions of structural response such as the displacement and acceleration responses

when the structure does not collapse. However, as the sidesway collapse mode considered

in this work is essentially an excessive displacement response, it is anticipated that many

of the findings will be applicable to displacement-based responses, especially for large

levels of nonlinearity; however, future work is required to confirm this.

The proposed method for estimating c presented in Section 4.5 has been demonstrated

for a case study, but more studies are needed to validate its ability to reduce the

uncertainty and/or computational effort in the c estimate. Additionally, the intensity

levels recommended for estimating the collapse fragility are specific to the case study

(i.e., the particular structure and seismic hazard curve), although limited results suggest

that intensities with cumulative contributions to c of at least 70% for the first intensity

and less than or equal to 35% for the second intensity should be used. Future work on the

optimum intensity levels to use for estimating c based on studies of a variety of

structures and seismic hazard curves will be useful.

Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions 308

The previous recommendations for the intensity levels to use when estimating the

collapse fragility are also conditional on the IM being Sa(T1). As indicated by the c

deaggregation presented in Figure 6.10, the collapse risk may not be dominated by

intensities in the lower tail of the collapse fragility curve when Saavg is the IM, which

could affect the intensity levels that are best for estimating the collapse risk. The

proposed method for estimating c is certainly applicable when using Saavg as the IM, and

in fact using Saavg instead of Sa(T1) is expected to provide a better estimate of c as Saavg

was demonstrated to generally be more efficient, sufficient, and produce more robust

structural response estimates than Sa(T1). However, the optimum intensity levels to use

with Saavg were not explored, and future work in this area is necessary.

In Chapter 5 it is shown that there is a strong relationship between the spectral shape as

measured by SaRatio and the collapse intensity Sa(T1)col and that the SaRatios of the

records used to predict the structural response can affect the computed collapse risk. The

approximate methods discussed in Section 5.7.2 for incorporating SaRatio in collapse

risk assessment should be used with caution. The approximate methods for estimating a

target SaRatio are reasonable approaches based on available data regarding the expected

spectral shape; however, future research on obtaining an appropriate target SaRatio is

necessary, specifically knowledge of the distribution of SaRatio given Sa(T1) obtained

from a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) deaggregation. A more direct way to

incorporate the effect of spectral shape when using Sa(T1) as the IM would be to use

records with appropriate spectral shapes in terms of expected values and variability, such

as selecting records to match a conditional spectrum based on a PSHA deaggregation

(see, e.g., Lin et al. 2013ba).

In Chapter 6 the GMPE for Saavg, which was used to compute the seismic hazard curve,

was obtained using GMPEs for Sa(T) and equations for the correlation of spectral values

at different periods because an established GMPE based directly on Saavg does not exist.

Though the former method is convenient because it uses existing equations, it will be

useful to confirm that it produces comparable values to a GMPE derived from regressions

directly on the Saavg values of records. As explained in Section 6.3.4, potential

Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions 309

differences in values could arise due to number of factors including the fact the equations

of the GMPE for Sa(T) and of the correlations between spectral values at different

periods are not exact matches to the empirical data. The impact of any differences should

be quantified, especially differences in the resulting seismic hazard curve and collapse

risk estimate.

On a related note, a significant obstacle to the use of Saavg in engineering practice is that

hazard curves and PSHA deaggregations are not widely available for Saavg as they are for

Sa(T1). The work presented in Chapter 7 suggests that the optimum period range to use

for Saavg varies with the structural system, so hazard curves for Saavg computed over

many different period ranges will be desirable to capture both the period range that works

for a particular structural system (e.g., 0 to 3T1) and the range of fundamental periods of

individual structures. Although this will increase the computational effort, it may not be

insurmountable, particularly if the GMPE for Saavg is based on existing GMPEs for Sa(T)

and equations for the correlation coefficients between spectral values at different periods

versus developing GMPEs based on regressions of the Saavg values of individual records.

It is envisioned that seismic hazard analysis applications such as those provided by

OpenSHA (Field et al. 2003; Field 2013) and the USGS (USGS 2012b; USGS 2012a)

can incorporate features allowing the user to input the specific periods he/she wishes to

use to compute Saavg.

The conclusions drawn about the efficiency, sufficiency, and recommended period range

for Saavg in Chapters 6 and 7 are obviously limited by the case studies considered. For

example, only structures with fundamental periods between T1 = 0.1 s and 3.2 s were

investigated, so longer periods structures are not considered in this study. Additionally,

the generic shear wall structures were assumed to fail in flexure, so the findings may not

apply to shear walls that fail in shear or other modes of failure (e.g., a combination of

shear and flexure, out-of-plane buckling, etc.). Only shear walls and MRF structural

systems were analyzed, so future investigations could examine the performance of Saavg

for other structural systems, including braced frames, base-isolated structures, and

structures with dual lateral systems. This is particularly important because it was found

Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions 310

that the recommended period range for computing Saavg was different for the MRF versus

the shear wall structures. Evaluation of Saavg with respect to specific types of ground

motions sets (e.g., those comprised exclusively of records with near-fault, forward

directivity pulses or long durations records) were not explicitly considered, so future

research in this area may be necessary if this is of concern.

In design codes such as ASCE 7-10 (ASCE 2010), ground motions used in response

history analysis must be scaled so that the average response spectrum of the ground

motion set is not less than the design response spectrum at periods between 0.2T1 and

1.5T1. Results presented in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 suggest that regions of the spectrum up to

3T1 for MRFs and up to 6T1 for shear walls are important for collapse, as including

periods up to these values when computing the average spectral value improves

prediction of structural response (either via the spectral shape parameter SaRatio or when

using Saavg as an IM). At the design level, the structure should experience significantly

smaller levels of nonlinearity than those associated with collapse, so future work will be

valuable in determining whether there is a benefit to extending the period range over

which the spectra are compared past 1.5T1 for design level checks (i.e., whether regions

of the spectrum greater than 1.5T1 are important for the response of the structure) and, if

so, determining how far to extend the period range. Limited results based on the case

study of the MRF structure presented in Chapter 3 show that prediction of the maximum

interstory drift ratio response at the 10/50 hazard level is improved when the upper limit

of the period range used to compute the average spectral value is increased from 1.5T1 to

a value between 2T1 and 3T1. As previously stated, however, comprehensive studies are

required to determine whether the period range used with respect to the scaling of ground

motions should be extended past 1.5T1.

This work contributes to improving the seismic collapse risk assessment of buildings by

examining the effects of collapse risk computation (in terms of the collapse risk metric

chosen as well as the intensity levels and number of ground motions used in structural

Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions 311

response assessment) and the intensity measure used to quantify the ground motion

intensity and predict the structural response. The findings of this work should be

interpreted considering the limitations of the studies. The promising results presented

here regarding the use of spectral acceleration averaged over a period range demonstrate

that it can be a particularly efficient predictor of structural response, particularly collapse,

and when used as an IM can produce significantly more reliable and robust collapse risk

estimates compared to other IMs. However, additional case studies regarding the collapse

risk estimates obtained using Saavg are required to validate these findings. Future work

can also expand recommendations on the period range used to compute Saavg to

additional structures.

Appendix A

This appendix documents the ground motions used in the case study. All ground motions

are from the PEER Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) database (Chiou et al. 2008).

This ground motion set, denoted as MRCD 137, is comprised of all NGA records,

excluding those from dam abutments, that are within a specified range of magnitude (Mw

between 6.93 and 7.62), Joyner-Boore distance (Rjb between 0 and 27 km), NEHRP site

class (C or D), and are from strike-slip, reverse, or reverse-oblique faults. The ground

motion set consists of 137 acceleration records (each with two horizontal components)

from 11 different events. Approximately 60% of the records are from the Mw = 7.62,

1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan event, which is reflected in the scatter plot in Figure A.1 that

shows the distribution of Mw and Rjb for the 137 records. The pseudo-acceleration

response spectra of the 137 records are shown in Figure A.2, where the spectral ordinates

are the 5%-damped, orientation-independent measures reported by the NGA (Chiou et al.

2008; Boore et al. 2006). A summary of the MRCD 137 ground motion set including

event data and number of recordings per event is provided in Table A.1, and details about

each of the 137 records including NGA identification numbers and station names are

provided in Table A.2.

312

Appendix A: MRCD 137 Ground Motion Set 313

Figure A.1. Magnitudes and distances of records in the MRCD 137 set.

Figure A.2. Response spectra of records in the MRCD 137 set with the median spectrum

denoted by the thick black line.

Appendix A: MRCD 137 Ground Motion Set 314

No. of Records

Year Event Mw

in Set

1940 Imperial Valley 6.95 1

1978 Tabas, Iran 7.35 2

1989 Loma Prieta 6.93 22

1992 Cape Mendocino 7.01 5

1992 Landers 7.28 8

1999 Kocaeli, Turkey 7.51 3

1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 7.62 84

1999 Duzce, Turkey 7.14 9

1979 St Elias, Alaska 7.54 1

1990 Manjil, Iran 7.37 1

1999 Hector Mine 7.13 1

Table A.2. Records comprising the MRCD 137 ground motion set

Event Information Site Information

Joyner

NGA

Mag. Earthquake Fault ClstD -Boore Vs30

No. Rec. Year Station Name

(Mw) Name Type (km) Dist. (m/s)

No.

(km)

Imperial Strike- El Centro Array

1 6 6.95 1940 6.1 6.1 213

Valley-02 Slip #9

2 138 7.35 Tabas, Iran 1978 Reverse Boshrooyeh 28.8 24.1 339

3 139 7.35 Tabas, Iran 1978 Reverse Dayhook 13.9 0.0 660

Reverse- Agnews State

4 737 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 24.6 24.3 240

Oblique Hospital

Reverse- Anderson Dam

5 739 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 20.3 19.9 489

Oblique (Downstream)

Reverse-

6 741 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 BRAN 10.7 3.9 376

Oblique

Reverse-

7 752 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 Capitola 15.2 8.7 289

Oblique

Reverse-

8 753 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 Corralitos 3.9 0.2 462

Oblique

Reverse- Coyote Lake

9 754 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 20.8 20.4 295

Oblique Dam (Downst)

Reverse- Gilroy -

10 763 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 10.0 9.2 730

Oblique Gavilan Coll.

Reverse- Gilroy -

11 764 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 11.0 10.3 339

Oblique Historic Bldg.

Reverse-

12 766 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 Gilroy Array #2 11.1 10.4 271

Oblique

Appendix A: MRCD 137 Ground Motion Set 315

Event Information Site Information

Joyner

NGA

Mag. Earthquake Fault ClstD -Boore Vs30

No. Rec. Year Station Name

(Mw) Name Type (km) Dist. (m/s)

No.

(km)

Reverse-

13 767 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 Gilroy Array #3 12.8 12.2 350

Oblique

Reverse-

14 768 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 Gilroy Array #4 14.3 13.8 222

Oblique

Reverse-

15 769 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 Gilroy Array #6 18.3 17.9 663

Oblique

Reverse-

16 770 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 Gilroy Array #7 22.7 22.4 334

Oblique

Reverse- Hollister Diff.

17 778 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 24.8 24.5 216

Oblique Array

Reverse-

18 779 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 LGPC 3.9 0.0 478

Oblique

San Jose -

Reverse-

19 801 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 Santa Teresa 14.7 14.2 672

Oblique

Hills

Reverse- Saratoga -

20 802 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 8.5 7.6 371

Oblique Aloha Ave

Reverse- Saratoga - W

21 803 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 9.3 8.5 371

Oblique Valley Coll.

Reverse- Sunnyvale -

22 806 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 24.2 23.9 268

Oblique Colton Ave.

Reverse-

23 809 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 UCSC 18.5 12.2 714

Oblique

Reverse- UCSC Lick

24 810 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 18.4 12.0 714

Oblique Observatory

Reverse-

25 811 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 WAHO 17.5 11.0 376

Oblique

Cape Cape

26 825 7.01 1992 Reverse 7.0 0.0 514

Mendocino Mendocino

Cape Fortuna -

27 827 7.01 1992 Reverse 20.0 16.0 457

Mendocino Fortuna Blvd

Cape

28 828 7.01 1992 Reverse Petrolia 8.2 0.0 713

Mendocino

Cape Rio Dell

29 829 7.01 1992 Reverse 14.3 7.9 312

Mendocino Overpass - FF

Cape Shelter Cove

30 830 7.01 1992 Reverse 28.8 26.5 514

Mendocino Airport

Strike-

31 848 7.28 Landers 1992 Coolwater 19.7 19.7 271

Slip

Strike- Desert Hot

32 850 7.28 Landers 1992 21.8 21.8 345

Slip Springs

Appendix A: MRCD 137 Ground Motion Set 316

Event Information Site Information

Joyner

NGA

Mag. Earthquake Fault ClstD -Boore Vs30

No. Rec. Year Station Name

(Mw) Name Type (km) Dist. (m/s)

No.

(km)

Strike-

33 864 7.28 Landers 1992 Joshua Tree 11.0 11.0 379

Slip

Strike-

34 879 7.28 Landers 1992 Lucerne 2.2 2.2 685

Slip

Strike- Mission Creek

35 880 7.28 Landers 1992 27.0 27.0 345

Slip Fault

Strike- Morongo

36 881 7.28 Landers 1992 17.3 17.3 345

Slip Valley

Strike- North Palm

37 882 7.28 Landers 1992 26.8 26.8 345

Slip Springs

Strike- Yermo Fire

38 900 7.28 Landers 1992 23.6 23.6 354

Slip Station

Kocaeli, Strike-

39 1148 7.51 1999 Arcelik 13.5 10.6 523

Turkey Slip

Kocaeli, Strike-

40 1158 7.51 1999 Duzce 15.4 13.6 276

Turkey Slip

Kocaeli, Strike-

41 1176 7.51 1999 Yarimca 4.8 1.4 297

Turkey Slip

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

42 1178 7.62 1999 ALS 10.8 0.7 553

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

43 1180 7.62 1999 CHY002 25.0 25.0 235

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

44 1182 7.62 1999 CHY006 9.8 9.8 438

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

45 1184 7.62 1999 CHY010 20.0 19.9 474

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

46 1193 7.62 1999 CHY024 9.6 9.6 428

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

47 1194 7.62 1999 CHY025 19.1 19.1 278

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

48 1197 7.62 1999 CHY028 3.1 3.1 543

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

49 1198 7.62 1999 CHY029 11.0 11.0 545

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

50 1201 7.62 1999 CHY034 14.8 14.8 379

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

51 1202 7.62 1999 CHY035 12.7 12.6 474

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

52 1203 7.62 1999 CHY036 16.1 16.1 233

Taiwan Oblique

Appendix A: MRCD 137 Ground Motion Set 317

Event Information Site Information

Joyner

NGA

Mag. Earthquake Fault ClstD -Boore Vs30

No. Rec. Year Station Name

(Mw) Name Type (km) Dist. (m/s)

No.

(km)

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

53 1205 7.62 1999 CHY041 19.8 19.4 492

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

54 1208 7.62 1999 CHY046 24.1 24.1 442

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

55 1209 7.62 1999 CHY047 24.1 24.1 273

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

56 1227 7.62 1999 CHY074 10.8 0.7 553

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

57 1231 7.62 1999 CHY080 2.7 0.1 553

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

58 1238 7.62 1999 CHY092 22.7 22.7 254

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

59 1244 7.62 1999 CHY101 10.0 10.0 259

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

60 1246 7.62 1999 CHY104 18.0 18.0 223

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

61 1403 7.62 1999 NSY 13.2 13.2 600

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

62 1462 7.62 1999 TCU 5.2 5.2 473

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

63 1480 7.62 1999 TCU036 19.8 19.8 273

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

64 1481 7.62 1999 TCU038 25.4 25.4 273

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

65 1482 7.62 1999 TCU039 19.9 19.9 541

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

66 1483 7.62 1999 TCU040 22.1 22.1 362

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

67 1484 7.62 1999 TCU042 26.3 26.3 273

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

68 1485 7.62 1999 TCU045 26.0 26.0 705

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

69 1486 7.62 1999 TCU046 16.7 16.7 466

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

70 1488 7.62 1999 TCU048 13.6 13.6 551

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

71 1489 7.62 1999 TCU049 3.8 3.8 487

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

72 1490 7.62 1999 TCU050 9.5 9.5 273

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

73 1491 7.62 1999 TCU051 7.7 7.7 273

Taiwan Oblique

Appendix A: MRCD 137 Ground Motion Set 318

Event Information Site Information

Joyner

NGA

Mag. Earthquake Fault ClstD -Boore Vs30

No. Rec. Year Station Name

(Mw) Name Type (km) Dist. (m/s)

No.

(km)

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

74 1492 7.62 1999 TCU052 0.7 0.0 579

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

75 1493 7.62 1999 TCU053 6.0 6.0 455

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

76 1494 7.62 1999 TCU054 5.3 5.3 461

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

77 1495 7.62 1999 TCU055 6.4 6.4 273

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

78 1496 7.62 1999 TCU056 10.5 10.5 273

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

79 1497 7.62 1999 TCU057 11.8 11.8 474

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

80 1498 7.62 1999 TCU059 17.1 17.1 273

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

81 1499 7.62 1999 TCU060 8.5 8.5 273

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

82 1500 7.62 1999 TCU061 17.2 17.2 273

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

83 1501 7.62 1999 TCU063 9.8 9.8 476

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

84 1502 7.62 1999 TCU064 16.6 16.6 273

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

85 1503 7.62 1999 TCU065 0.6 0.6 306

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

86 1504 7.62 1999 TCU067 0.6 0.6 434

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

87 1505 7.62 1999 TCU068 0.3 0.0 487

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

88 1506 7.62 1999 TCU070 19.0 19.0 401

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

89 1507 7.62 1999 TCU071 5.3 0.0 625

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

90 1508 7.62 1999 TCU072 7.0 0.0 468

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

91 1509 7.62 1999 TCU074 13.5 0.0 549

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

92 1510 7.62 1999 TCU075 0.9 0.9 573

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

93 1511 7.62 1999 TCU076 2.8 2.8 615

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

94 1512 7.62 1999 TCU078 8.2 0.0 443

Taiwan Oblique

Appendix A: MRCD 137 Ground Motion Set 319

Event Information Site Information

Joyner

NGA

Mag. Earthquake Fault ClstD -Boore Vs30

No. Rec. Year Station Name

(Mw) Name Type (km) Dist. (m/s)

No.

(km)

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

95 1513 7.62 1999 TCU079 11.0 0.0 364

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

96 1515 7.62 1999 TCU082 5.2 5.2 473

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

97 1517 7.62 1999 TCU084 11.2 0.0 553

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

98 1519 7.62 1999 TCU087 7.0 7.0 474

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

99 1520 7.62 1999 TCU088 18.2 4.7 553

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

100 1521 7.62 1999 TCU089 8.9 0.0 553

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

101 1527 7.62 1999 TCU100 11.4 11.4 474

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

102 1528 7.62 1999 TCU101 2.1 2.1 273

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

103 1529 7.62 1999 TCU102 1.5 1.5 714

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

104 1530 7.62 1999 TCU103 6.1 6.1 494

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

105 1531 7.62 1999 TCU104 12.9 12.9 474

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

106 1532 7.62 1999 TCU105 17.2 17.2 576

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

107 1533 7.62 1999 TCU106 15.0 15.0 474

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

108 1534 7.62 1999 TCU107 16.0 16.0 474

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

109 1535 7.62 1999 TCU109 13.1 13.1 474

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

110 1536 7.62 1999 TCU110 11.6 11.6 213

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

111 1537 7.62 1999 TCU111 22.1 22.1 238

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

112 1540 7.62 1999 TCU115 21.8 21.8 215

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

113 1541 7.62 1999 TCU116 12.4 12.4 493

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

114 1542 7.62 1999 TCU117 25.4 25.4 199

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

115 1543 7.62 1999 TCU118 26.8 26.8 215

Taiwan Oblique

Appendix A: MRCD 137 Ground Motion Set 320

Event Information Site Information

Joyner

NGA

Mag. Earthquake Fault ClstD -Boore Vs30

No. Rec. Year Station Name

(Mw) Name Type (km) Dist. (m/s)

No.

(km)

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

116 1545 7.62 1999 TCU120 7.4 7.4 459

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

117 1546 7.62 1999 TCU122 9.4 9.4 475

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

118 1547 7.62 1999 TCU123 14.9 14.9 273

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

119 1548 7.62 1999 TCU128 13.2 13.2 600

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

120 1549 7.62 1999 TCU129 1.8 1.8 664

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

121 1550 7.62 1999 TCU136 8.3 8.3 474

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

122 1551 7.62 1999 TCU138 9.8 9.8 653

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

123 1553 7.62 1999 TCU141 24.2 24.2 215

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

124 1595 7.62 1999 WGK 10.0 10.0 259

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

125 1596 7.62 1999 WNT 1.8 1.8 664

Taiwan Oblique

Duzce, Strike-

126 1602 7.14 1999 Bolu 12.0 12.0 326

Turkey Slip

Duzce, Strike-

127 1605 7.14 1999 Duzce 6.6 0.0 276

Turkey Slip

Duzce, Strike-

128 1611 7.14 1999 Lamont 1058 0.2 0.2 425

Turkey Slip

Duzce, Strike-

129 1612 7.14 1999 Lamont 1059 4.2 4.2 425

Turkey Slip

Duzce, Strike-

130 1614 7.14 1999 Lamont 1061 11.5 11.5 481

Turkey Slip

Duzce, Strike-

131 1615 7.14 1999 Lamont 1062 9.2 9.2 338

Turkey Slip

Duzce, Strike-

132 1616 7.14 1999 Lamont 362 23.4 23.4 517

Turkey Slip

Duzce, Strike-

133 1617 7.14 1999 Lamont 375 3.9 3.9 425

Turkey Slip

Duzce, Strike-

134 1618 7.14 1999 Lamont 531 8.0 8.0 660

Turkey Slip

St Elias,

135 1628 7.54 1979 Reverse Icy Bay 26.5 26.5 275

Alaska

Strike-

136 1633 7.37 Manjil, Iran 1990 Abbar 12.6 12.6 724

Slip

Appendix A: MRCD 137 Ground Motion Set 321

Event Information Site Information

Joyner

NGA

Mag. Earthquake Fault ClstD -Boore Vs30

No. Rec. Year Station Name

(Mw) Name Type (km) Dist. (m/s)

No.

(km)

Strike-

137 1787 7.13 Hector Mine 1999 Hector 11.7 10.4 685

Slip

Appendix B

This appendix documents the generic moment-resisting frame (MRF), generic shear wall,

and reinforced concrete (RC) MRF structures and accompanying ground motion sets used

in Chapters 5-7. For more detailed information, the reader is referred to the

corresponding reports cited in the appropriate sections below.

The generic moment-resisting frame structures are taken from Zareian and Krawinkler

(2009, Chapter 4). The frames used were all 3-bay generic frames with story height equal

to 12 and bay span equal to 36. The models considered were two-dimensional centerline

models. The number of stories varied between 4 and 16 and for each number of stories,

three different fundamental periods were considered, equal to 0.1, 0.15 and 0.2 times the

number of stories. Viscous damping equal to 5% critical at the first and third mode of

vibration was assumed. For each period considered, three yield base shear coefficients ()

were considered. These coefficients were obtained by dividing a typical design response

spectrum corresponding to a 10/50 hazard level in the Los Angeles area and soil type D

by three values of R (1.5, 3 and 6). R corresponds to the ductility dependent reduction

factor. The column-to-beam bending strength was also varied and three different cases

were considered. Finally, the parameters of the component hysteretic behavior were also

varied, by selecting different values for each of the hinge plastic rotation, the post-

capping rotation capacity ration and capping strength ratio. Additional details are

provided by Zareian and Krawinkler (2009, Section 4.4).

The ground motion set considered was the LMSR-N, as developed by Medina and

Krawinkler (2003, Table 3.6). This set consists of 40 recordings where each record is

from a separate station (i.e., one random horizontal component is used from each station)

from events with magnitudes of Mw = 6.53 6.93 and distances of Rjb = 0.0 km

322

Appendix B: Description of Case Studies Used in Chapters 5-7 323

37.7 km. Additional details about the records in this set are provided by Medina and

Krawinkler (2003, Section 3.3).

The generic shear wall structures are also taken from Zareian and Krawinkler (2009,

Chapter 4). Only shear walls whose behavior is governed by flexural-type deformations

were considered. They were modeled as cantilevered members consisting of a series of

beam elements. Again, the number of stories varied between 4 and 16. However, the

corresponding fundamental periods were taken at 0.05, 0.075 and 0.1 times the number of

stories. Viscous damping was also equal to 5% critical at the first and third mode. The

same procedure that was followed to obtain the yield base shear coefficients in the case

of the moment resisting frame structures was also followed to obtain the bending strength

of the shear wall structures. The stiffness of the walls was not varied along the height,

consistent with practice in low- and mid-rise buildings. Finally, parameters of the

hysteretic behavior, including the plastic hinge rotation capacity, the post-capping

rotation capacity ratio, the capping strength ratio and the cyclic deterioration parameter

were varied based on existing literature. Additional details are provided by Zareian and

Krawinkler (2009, Section 4.5). The LMSR-N ground motion set was also used.

The reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame structures were taken from Haselton and

Deierlein (2007, Table 3-3). All 30 frame structures were designed according to then-

current building codes and standards. The number of stories varied between 1 and 20,

with first mode periods between 0.42 s and 2.63 s. In all cases the story height was equal

to 12, while the bays were either 20 or 30 wide. Aside from frames with stepped

strength and stiffness along the height, as per common design practice, frames with

neither size nor reinforcement decrease along the height, as well as frames with a weak

story were considered. Boundary conditions also varied between completely fixed and

pinned, but only for the 1- and 2-story structures. All other structures were assumed to be

partially fixed by means of a grade beam. Additional details are provided by Haselton

and Deierlein (2007, Chapter 3).

Appendix B: Description of Case Studies Used in Chapters 5-7 324

A set of 39 recordings each with two horizontal components denoted Set One was

used. The set contains a maximum of six recordings per event. The records are from

events with magnitudes of Mw = 6.50 7.62 and distances of Rjb = 0.9 km 74.2 km.

Records have peak ground acceleration > 0.2 g and peak ground velocity > 15 cm/s.

Additional details are provided by Haselton and Deierlein (2007, Appendix 3B).

Appendix C

This appendix documents the ground motions sets based on a conditional spectrum (CS)

that are used in Chapters 6 and 7. The CS describes both the expected spectral values and

the dispersion of those values at each period conditioned on the occurrence of a particular

event, known as the target event. As discussed by Lin et al. (2013a; 2013b), a CS

describes the full distribution of the spectrum at all periods (i.e., it captures both the

expected spectral values and the variability of those values) given the occurrence of an

event or events. The properties of an event (e.g., magnitude, distance, , fault type, etc.)

are used with a ground motion prediction equation (GMPE) and correlations between

values at different periods to construct the CS. Further information about the CS,

including how it can account for multiple events and multiple GMPEs, is provided by Lin

et al. (2013a; 2013b).

Two CS are used in Chapter 6 and are constructed using publicly available software,

which is described by Jayaram et al. (2011). This software also selects a user-specified

number of records from the PEER Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) database (Chiou

et al. 2008) that best fit the CS. The 2008 Boore and Atkinson (BA08) GMPE (Boore and

Atkinson 2008) is used for all calculations, and only one event is used for each CS. The

event properties are as follows: magnitude Mw = 6.7, Joyner-Boore distance Rjb = 10 km,

average soil velocity in the top 30 m of Vs30 = 285 m/s, and an unspecified fault type. One

CS is based on (1) = 1.7 while the other is based on (1) = 1.8, where T1 = 1.33 s.

Forty recordings, each with two horizontal components, are selected to match each CS.

The match is evaluated using the geometric mean spectral ordinates of each recording as

computed from its two horizontal components. Fourteen recordings are common to both

ground motion sets.

325

Appendix C: CS Ground Motion Sets Used in Chapters 6 and 7 326

As previously stated the CS, (1) = 1.7 ground motion set is based on the CS computed

using the BA08 GMPE with the following parameters: Mw = 6.7, Rjb = 10 km, Vs30 = 285

m/s, an unspecified fault type, and (1) = 1.7, where T1 = 1.33 s. The geometric mean

(i.e., the exponent of the mean of the logarithms) spectral values and the logarithmic

standard deviation of the CS are shown in Figure C.1(a) and Figure C.1(b), respectively.

Comparisons of how the selected ground motions compare to the target CS are also

included in these figures and demonstrate a close match between the two.

Figure C.1. Comparison of the target CS and the selected ground motions: (a) geometric

mean spectral values; (b) logarithmic standard deviation of spectral values.

The geometric mean spectrum of each selected ground motion is presented in Figure C.2

along with the median (geometric mean) spectrum and 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles of the

ground motion set.

Appendix C: CS Ground Motion Sets Used in Chapters 6 and 7 327

Figure C.2. Response spectra of ground motions in the CS, (T1)= 1.7 set.

Details about each of the forty recordings comprising the CS, (1) = 1.7 ground motion

set are presented in Table C.1, which includes the NGA identification numbers and

pertinent information about the events.

Table C.1. Records comprising the CS, (T1) = 1.7 ground motion set.

Event Information Site Information

Joyner

NGA

Mag. Earthquake Fault Station ClstD -Boore Vs30

No. Rec. Year

(Mw) Name Type Name (km) Dist. (m/s)

No.

(km)

Imperial Strike- EC County

1 170 6.53 1979 7.3 7.3 192

Valley-06 Slip Center FF

2 Irpinia, Italy-

300 6.20 1980 Normal Calitri 8.8 8.8 600

02

Parkfield -

3 337 6.36 Coalinga-01 1983 Reverse Fault Zone 29.3 28.0 339

12

Parkfield -

4 348 6.36 Coalinga-01 1983 Reverse Gold Hill 36.2 35.0 339

1W

Parkfield -

5 359 6.36 Coalinga-01 1983 Reverse Vineyard 26.4 24.8 339

Cany 1E

6 Slack

369 6.36 Coalinga-01 1983 Reverse 27.5 26.0 685

Canyon

N. Palm Reverse- Morongo

7 527 6.06 1986 12.1 3.7 345

Springs Oblique Valley

Taiwan SMART1

8 571 7.30 1986 Reverse 0.0 0.0 275

SMART1(45) E01

9 Taiwan SMART1

583 7.30 1986 Reverse 0.0 0.0 275

SMART1(45) O10

Appendix C: CS Ground Motion Sets Used in Chapters 6 and 7 328

Event Information Site Information

Joyner

NGA

Mag. Earthquake Fault Station ClstD -Boore Vs30

No. Rec. Year

(Mw) Name Type Name (km) Dist. (m/s)

No.

(km)

Spitak, Reverse-

10 730 6.77 1988 Gukasian 0.0 0.0 275

Armenia Oblique

Bear Valley

11 Reverse- #12,

744 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 51.0 50.7 331

Oblique Williams

Ranch

Reverse-

12 753 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 Corralitos 3.9 0.2 462

Oblique

Reverse- Gilroy Array

13 766 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 11.1 10.4 271

Oblique #2

Reverse- Gilroy Array

14 768 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 14.3 13.8 222

Oblique #4

Olema -

Reverse-

15 785 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 Point Reyes 117.1 117.0 339

Oblique

Station

16 Reverse- Treasure

808 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 77.4 77.3 155

Oblique Island

Fountain

Strike-

17 856 7.28 Landers 1992 Valley - 146.9 146.9 270

Slip

Euclid

18 Strike-

864 7.28 Landers 1992 Joshua Tree 11.0 11.0 379

Slip

Beverly Hills

19 953 6.69 Northridge-01 1994 Reverse - 14145 17.2 9.4 356

Mulhol

LA -

20 Wadsworth

1009 6.69 Northridge-01 1994 Reverse 23.6 14.6 392

VA Hospital

North

Moorpark -

21 1039 6.69 Northridge-01 1994 Reverse 24.8 16.9 405

Fire Sta

Strike-

22 1116 6.90 Kobe, Japan 1995 Shin-Osaka 19.2 19.1 256

Slip

Strike-

23 1119 6.90 Kobe, Japan 1995 Takarazuka 0.3 0.0 312

Slip

Strike-

24 1120 6.90 Kobe, Japan 1995 Takatori 1.5 1.5 256

Slip

25 Kocaeli, Strike-

1166 7.51 1999 Iznik 30.7 30.7 275

Turkey Slip

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

26 1182 7.62 1999 CHY006 9.8 9.8 438

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

27 1187 7.62 1999 CHY015 38.1 38.1 229

Taiwan Oblique

28 Chi-Chi, Reverse-

1197 7.62 1999 CHY028 3.1 3.1 543

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

29 1227 7.62 1999 CHY074 10.8 0.7 553

Taiwan Oblique

Appendix C: CS Ground Motion Sets Used in Chapters 6 and 7 329

Event Information Site Information

Joyner

NGA

Mag. Earthquake Fault Station ClstD -Boore Vs30

No. Rec. Year

(Mw) Name Type Name (km) Dist. (m/s)

No.

(km)

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

30 1234 7.62 1999 CHY086 28.4 27.6 553

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

31 1286 7.62 1999 HWA037 46.2 41.7 273

Taiwan Oblique

32 Chi-Chi, Reverse-

1323 7.62 1999 ILA027 83.2 80.8 215

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

33 1330 7.62 1999 ILA039 86.1 83.8 227

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

34 1418 7.62 1999 TAP014 103.5 101.6 215

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

35 1421 7.62 1999 TAP021 101.4 99.5 215

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

36 1510 7.62 1999 TCU075 0.9 0.9 573

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

37 1536 7.62 1999 TCU110 11.6 11.6 213

Taiwan Oblique

Strike-

38 1633 7.37 Manjil, Iran 1990 Abbar 12.6 12.6 724

Slip

Chi-Chi,

39 2466 6.20 1999 Reverse CHY035 34.5 33.9 474

Taiwan-03

40 Chi-Chi,

3270 6.30 1999 Reverse CHY030 45.3 44.2 205

Taiwan-06

As previously stated the CS, (1) = 1.8 ground motion set is based on the CS computed

using the BA08 GMPE with the following parameters: Mw = 6.7, Rjb = 10 km, Vs30 = 285

m/s, an unspecified fault type, and (1) = 1.8, where T1 = 1.33 s. The geometric mean

(i.e., the exponent of the mean of the logarithms) spectral values and the logarithmic

standard deviation of the CS are shown in Figure C.3(a) and Figure C.3(b), respectively.

Comparisons of how the selected ground motions compare to the target CS are also

included in these figures and demonstrate a close match between the two.

Appendix C: CS Ground Motion Sets Used in Chapters 6 and 7 330

Figure C.3. Comparison of the target CS and the selected ground motions: (a) geometric

mean spectral values; (b) logarithmic standard deviation of spectral values.

The geometric mean spectrum of each selected ground motion is presented in Figure C.4

along with the median (geometric mean) spectrum and 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles of the

ground motion set.

Figure C.4. Response spectra of ground motions in the CS, (1) = 1.8 set.

Details about each of the forty recordings comprising the CS, (1) = 1.8 ground motion

set are presented in Table C.2, which includes the NGA identification numbers and

pertinent information about the events.

Appendix C: CS Ground Motion Sets Used in Chapters 6 and 7 331

Table C.2. Records comprising the CS, (T1) = 1.8 ground motion set.

Event Information Site Information

Joyner

NGA

Mag. Earthquake Fault Station ClstD -Boore Vs30

No. Rec. Year

(Mw) Name Type Name (km) Dist. (m/s)

No.

(km)

Imperial Strike- EC County

1 170 6.53 1979 7.3 7.3 192

Valley-06 Slip Center FF

Irpinia, Italy-

2 300 6.20 1980 Normal Calitri 8.8 8.8 600

02

Parkfield -

3 337 6.36 Coalinga-01 1983 Reverse Fault Zone 29.3 28.0 339

12

N. Palm Reverse- Morongo

4 527 6.06 1986 12.1 3.7 345

Springs Oblique Valley

5 Taiwan SMART1

576 7.30 1986 Reverse 0.0 0.0 275

SMART1(45) M07

El Centro

Superstition Strike-

6 721 6.54 1987 Imp. Co. 18.2 18.2 192

Hills-02 Slip

Cent

APEEL 2 -

7 Reverse-

732 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 Redwood 43.2 43.1 133

Oblique

City

Bear Valley

Reverse- #12,

8 744 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 51.0 50.7 331

Oblique Williams

Ranch

9 Reverse-

779 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 LGPC 3.9 0.0 478

Oblique

Larkspur

Reverse- Ferry

10 780 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 94.6 94.6 170

Oblique Terminal

(FF)

Oakland -

Reverse-

11 783 6.93 Loma Prieta 1989 Outer Harbor 74.3 74.2 249

Oblique

Wharf

Strike-

12 864 7.28 Landers 1992 Joshua Tree 11.0 11.0 379

Slip

Beverly Hills

13 953 6.69 Northridge-01 1994 Reverse - 14145 17.2 9.4 356

Mulhol

Canoga Park

14 959 6.69 Northridge-01 1994 Reverse - Topanga 14.7 0.0 267

Can

Northridge -

15 1048 6.69 Northridge-01 1994 Reverse 17645 12.1 0.0 281

Saticoy St

Santa

16 1077 6.69 Northridge-01 1994 Reverse Monica City 26.5 17.3 336

Hall

17 Simi Valley -

1080 6.69 Northridge-01 1994 Reverse 13.4 0.0 557

Katherine Rd

Strike- Port Island (0

18 1114 6.90 Kobe, Japan 1995 3.3 3.3 198

Slip m)

Appendix C: CS Ground Motion Sets Used in Chapters 6 and 7 332

Event Information Site Information

Joyner

NGA

Mag. Earthquake Fault Station ClstD -Boore Vs30

No. Rec. Year

(Mw) Name Type Name (km) Dist. (m/s)

No.

(km)

Strike-

19 1120 6.90 Kobe, Japan 1995 Takatori 1.5 1.5 256

Slip

20 1141 6.40 Dinar, Turkey 1995 Normal Dinar 3.4 0.0 220

Kocaeli, Strike-

21 1155 7.51 1999 Bursa Tofas 60.4 60.4 275

Turkey Slip

22 Chi-Chi, Reverse-

1178 7.62 1999 ALS 10.8 0.7 553

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

23 1182 7.62 1999 CHY006 9.8 9.8 438

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

24 1187 7.62 1999 CHY015 38.1 38.1 229

Taiwan Oblique

25 Chi-Chi, Reverse-

1197 7.62 1999 CHY028 3.1 3.1 543

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

26 1204 7.62 1999 CHY039 31.9 31.9 201

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

27 1209 7.62 1999 CHY047 24.1 24.1 273

Taiwan Oblique

28 Chi-Chi, Reverse-

1263 7.62 1999 HWA012 56.7 53.0 273

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

29 1286 7.62 1999 HWA037 46.2 41.7 273

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

30 1295 7.62 1999 HWA049 50.8 46.7 273

Taiwan Oblique

31 Chi-Chi, Reverse-

1323 7.62 1999 ILA027 83.2 80.8 215

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

32 1413 7.62 1999 TAP007 103.7 102.2 215

Taiwan Oblique

Chi-Chi, Reverse-

33 1421 7.62 1999 TAP021 101.4 99.5 215

Taiwan Oblique

34 Strike-

1602 7.14 Duzce, Turkey 1999 Bolu 12.0 12.0 326

Slip

St Elias,

35 1628 7.54 1979 Reverse Icy Bay 26.5 26.5 275

Alaska

Chi-Chi,

36 2461 6.20 1999 Reverse CHY028 24.4 23.4 543

Taiwan-03

Chi-Chi, Strike-

37 2734 6.20 1999 CHY074 6.2 6.0 553

Taiwan-04 Slip

Chi-Chi,

38 3080 6.20 1999 Reverse KAU020 109.1 106.0 373

Taiwan-05

Chi-Chi,

39 3467 6.30 1999 Reverse TCU065 26.1 24.1 306

Taiwan-06

Chi-Chi,

40 3510 6.30 1999 Reverse TCU139 39.0 37.7 304

Taiwan-06

List of References

Abrahamson, N., Atkinson, G., Boore, D., Bozorgnia, Y., Campbell, K., Chiou, B., Idriss,

I. M., Silva, W., and Youngs, R. (2008). "Comparisons of the NGA ground-motion

relations." Earthquake Spectra, 24(1), 45.

ACI (2005). Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-05) and

commentary (ACI 318R-05), American Concrete Institute (ACI), Farmington Hills,

MI.

Adam, C., and Jger, C. (2012a). "Seismic collapse capacity of basic inelastic structures

vulnerable to the P-delta effect." Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,

41(4), 775-793.

Adam, C., and Jger, C. (2012b). "Simplified collapse capacity assessment of earthquake

excited regular frame structures vulnerable to P-delta." Engineering Structures, 44,

159-173.

Agresti, A., and Coull, B. A. (1998). "Approximate is better than 'exact' for interval

estimation of binomial proportions." The American Statistician, 52(2), 119-126.

Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.

AISC (2005a). "Prequalified connections for special and intermediate steel moment

frames for seismic applications, AISC 358-05." American Institute of Steel

Construction (AISC), Chicago, IL.

AISC (2005b). "Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, including Supplement

No. 1." American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Chicago, IL.

estimate maximum deformations of short period structures." Proc., 13th World

Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Paper No. 3424.

333

List of References 334

Akkar, S., and zen, . (2005). "Effect of peak ground velocity on deformation demands

for SDOF systems." Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34(13), 1551-

1571.

models for point- and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the

Middle East." Bull Earthquake Eng, 1-29.

Alavi, B., and Krawinkler, H. (2001). "Effects of near-fault ground motions on frame

structures." Report No. 138, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center,

Stanford University, Stanford, CA, <http://blume.stanford.edu/tech_reports> (14

Aug. 2013).

earthquakes." Journal of Structural Engineering, 113(8).

ASCE (2005). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures (ASCE/SEI 7-

05), American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA.

ASCE (2010). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures (ASCE/SEI 7-

10), American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA.

Aslani, H., and Miranda, E. (2004). "Optimization of response simulation for loss

estimation using PEER's methodology." 13th World Conference on Earthquake

Engineering, Vancouver, Canada.

Aslani, H., and Miranda, E. (2005a). "Probabilistic earthquake loss estimation and loss

disaggregation in buildings." Report No. 157, The John A. Blume Earthquake

Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA,

<http://blume.stanford.edu/tech_reports> (14 Aug. 2013).

Engineering Structures, 27(8), 1151-1163.

List of References 335

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC,

<http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/16648?id=3736> (14 Aug.

2013).

ATC (2009b). "Effects of strength and stiffness degradation on seismic response." FEMA

P440A, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC,

<http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/17037?id=3807> (14 Aug.

2013).

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC,

<http://www.atcouncil.org/Projects/atc-58-project.html> (14 Aug. 2013).

Azarbakht, A., and Dolek, M. (2007). "Prediction of the median IDA curve by

employing a limited number of ground motion records." Earthquake Engineering and

Structural Dynamics, 36(15), 2401-2421.

Azarbakht, A., and Dolek, M. (2010). "Progressive incremental dynamic analysis for

first-mode dominated structures." Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(3), 445

455.

displacement demands for the design of structures in the near field." Proc., 12th

World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand.

measures for probabilistic seismic demand analysis." Report No. 150, The John. A

Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA,

<http://blume.stanford.edu/tech_reports> (14 Aug. 2013).

Baker, J. W., and Cornell, C. A. (2005b). "A vector-valued ground motion intensity

measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon." Earthquake Engineering &

Structural Dynamics, 34(10), 1193-1217.

List of References 336

Baker, J. W., and Cornell, C. A. (2006a). "Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection."

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 35(9), 1077-1095.

Baker, J. W., and Cornell, C. A. (2006b). "Which spectral acceleration are you using?"

Earthquake Spectra, 22(2), 293-312.

scaling." Proc., 8th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Nanyang

Technological University, Singapore.

wavelet analysis." Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 97(5), 1486-

1501.

White Paper, Version 1.3,

<http://www.stanford.edu/~bakerjw/Publications/Baker_(2008)_Intro_to_PSHA_v1_

3.pdf> (14 Aug. 2013).

Baker, J. W., and Cornell, C. A. (2008). "Vector-valued intensity measures for pulse-like

near-fault ground motions." Engineering Structures, 30(4), 1048-1057.

Baker, J. W., and Jayaram, N. (2008). "Correlation of spectral acceleration values from

NGA ground motion models." Earthquake Spectra, 24(1), 299-317.

Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(3), 322-331.

Baker, J. W., Lin, T., Shahi, S. K., and Jayaram, N. (2011). "New ground motion

selection procedures and selected motions for the PEER transportation research

program." PEER Report 2011/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER)

Center, Berkeley, CA,

<http://peer.berkeley.edu/publications/peer_reports/reports_2011/reports_2011.html>

(14 Aug. 2013).

List of References 337

structural analysis." Earthquake Spectra, in review.

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford,

CA, <http://blume.stanford.edu/rms_theses> (14 Aug. 2013).

Bazzurro, P., Cornell, C. A., Shome, N., and Carballo, J. (1998). "Three proposals for

characterizing MDOF nonlinear seismic response." Journal of Structural

Engineering, 124(11), 1281-1289.

Benjamin, J. R., and Cornell, C. A. (1970). Probability, statistics, and decision for civil

engineers, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Structural Engineering, 118(8), 2239-2260.

earthquakes-evaluation of present methods." Proc., Int. Symp. on Earthquake

Structural Engineering, St. Louis, Missouri, 551-580.

Bertero, V. V., Mahin, S. A., and Herrera, R. A. (1978). "Aseismic design implications of

near-fault San Fernando earthquake records." Earthquake Engineering & Structural

Dynamics, 6(1), 31-42.

earthquake engineering." Nota Tecnica n. 215, Universit di Bologna, Bologna, Italy,

<http://amsacta.unibo.it/2455/1/Average_NT215.pdf> (14 Aug. 2013).

structural response using an average of spectral accelerations." 10th International

Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability (ICOSSAR09), Osaka, Japan.

Blom, G. (1958). Statistical estimates and transformed beta variables, John Willey &

Sons, New York.

List of References 338

Bojrquez, E., and Iervolino, I. (2011). "Spectral shape proxies and nonlinear structural

response." Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 31(7), 996-1008.

independent measures of ground motion." Bulletin of the Seismological Society of

America, 96(4A), 1502-1511.

Boore, D. M., and Atkinson, G. M. (2008). "Ground-motion prediction equations for the

average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral

periods between 0.01s and 10.0s." Earthquake Spectra, 24(1), 99-138.

Bradley, B. A., and Dhakal, R. P. (2008). "Error estimation of closed-form solution for

annual rate of structural collapse." Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,

37(15), 1721-1737.

holistic ground-motion selection." Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,

39(12), 1321-1342.

Bradley, B. A., Dhakal, R. P., MacRae, G. A., and Cubrinovski, M. (2010a). "Prediction

of spatially distributed seismic demands in specific structures: ground motion and

structural response." Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 39(5), 501-

520.

Bradley, B. A., Dhakal, R. P., MacRae, G. A., and Cubrinovski, M. (2010b). "Prediction

of spatially distributed seismic demands in specific structures: structural response to

loss estimation." Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 39(6), 591-613.

Bradley, B. A. (2012). "The seismic demand hazard and importance of the conditioning

intensity measure." Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 41(11), 1417-

1437.

List of References 339

BSSC (2003). "NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new

buildings and other structures." FEMA 450, Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA), Washington, DC, <http://www.fema.gov/media-

library/assets/documents/5543?id=2020> (14 Aug. 2013).

Burks, L. S., and Baker, J. W. (2012). "Occurrence of negative epsilon in seismic hazard

analysis deaggregation, and its impact on target spectra computation." Earthquake

Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 41(8), 1241-1256.

Campbell, K. W., and Bozorgnia, Y. (2008). "NGA ground motion model for the

geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear

elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10s." Earthquake Spectra,

24(1), 139.

spectrum matching and design." Report No. RMS-41, RMS Program, Stanford

University, Stanford, CA, <http://blume.stanford.edu/rms_theses> (14 Aug. 2013).

Challa, V. R. M., and Hall, J. F. (1994). "Earthquake collapse analysis of steel frames."

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 23(11), 1199-1218.

Chandramohan, R., Lin, T., Baker, J. W., and Deierlein, G. G. (2013). "Influence of

ground motion spectral shape and duration on seismic collapse risk." Proc., 10th

International Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan.

Chiou, B., Darragh, R., Gregor, N., and Silva, W. (2008). "NGA project strong-motion

database." Earthquake Spectra, 24(1), 23-44.

Chopra, A. K., Bertero, V. V., and Mahin, S. A. (1973). "Response of the Olive View

Medical Center main building during the San Fernando earthquake." Proc., 5th World

Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Italy, 26-35.

engineering, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

List of References 340

Chopra, A. K., and Goel, R. K. (2002). "A modal pushover analysis procedure for

estimating seismic demands for buildings." Earthquake Engineering and Structural

Dynamics, 31(3), 561-582.

"Incremental dynamic analysis of woodframe buildings." Earthquake Engineering &

Structural Dynamics, 38(4), 477-496.

Clopper, C. J., and Pearson, E. S. (1934). "The use of confidence or fiducial limits

illustrated in the case of the binomial." Biometrika, 26, 404-413.

"Development of a two-parameter seismic intensity measure and probabilistic

assessment procedure." Proc., The Second U.S.-Japan Workshop on Performance-

Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete Building

Structures, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan, 187-206, 11-13 September, 2000.

Cuesta, I., and Aschheim, M. (2001). "Inelastic response spectra using conventional and

pulse R-factors." Journal of Structural Engineering, 127(9), 1013-1020.

performance assessment." Proc., International Workshop on Performance-Based

Seismic Design - Concepts and Implementation, Bled, Slovenia, P. Fajfar and H.

Krawinkler, eds., Report No. PEER 2004/05, Berkeley, CA, 15-26,

<http://peer.berkeley.edu/publications/peer_reports/reports_2004/reports_2004.html>

(14 Aug. 2013).

uncertainties." Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 38(6), 805-825.

List of References 341

2011/102, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), University of

California, Berkeley, CA,

<http://peer.berkeley.edu/publications/peer_reports/reports_2011/reports_2011.html>

(14 Aug. 2013).

Eads, L., Miranda, E., Krawinkler, H., and Lignos, D. G. (2012). "Deaggregation of

collapse risk." Proc., ASCE Structures Congress, Chicago, IL, March 29-31, 2012.

Eads, L., Miranda, E., Krawinkler, H., and Lignos, D. G. (2013). "An efficient method

for estimating the collapse risk of structures in seismic regions." Earthquake

Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 42(1), 25-41.

Efron, B. (1979). "Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife." The Annals of

Statistics, 7(1), 1-26.

Efron, B., and Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap, Chapman &

Hall/CRC, New York.

Elkady, A., and Lignos, D. (2013). "Effect of composite action on the dynamic stability

of special steel moment resisting frames designed in seismic regions." Proc., ASCE

Structures Congress 2013, Pittsburgh, PA, 2151-2160.

Ellingwood, B. R., Celik, O. C., and Kinali, K. (2007). "Fragility assessment of building

structural systems in Mid-America." Earthquake Engineering & Structural

Dynamics, 36(13), 1935-1952.

Fajfar, P., and Dolek, M. (2012). "A practice-oriented estimation of the failure

probability of building structures." Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,

41(3), 531-547.

Field, E. H., Jordan, T. H., and Cornell, C. A. (2003). "A developing community-

modeling environment for seismic hazard analysis." Seismological Research Letters,

74(4), 406-419.

List of References 342

California, <http://www.opensha.org> (14 Aug. 2013).

Ger, J.-F., Cheng, F. Y., and Lu, L.-W. (1993). "Collapse behavior of Pino Suarez

building during 1985 Mexico City earthquake." Journal of Structural Engineering

(ASCE), 119(3), 852-870.

Ghafory-Ashtiany, M., Mousavi, M., and Azarbakht, A. (2011). "Strong ground motion

record selection for the reliable prediction of the mean seismic collapse capacity of a

structure group." Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 40(6), 691-708.

Gregor, N. J., Addo, K. O., Abrahamson, N. A., and Youngs, R. R. (2013). "Comparison

of BC Hydro Subduction GMPE to data from recent large megathrust earthquakes."

Proc., 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.

velocity." Master's Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering and Geological Sciences,

University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, <http://etd.nd.edu/ETD-

db/theses/available/etd-04162010-151559> (14 Aug. 2013).

Gupta, A., and Krawinkler, H. (1999). "Seismic demands for performance evaluation of

steel moment resisting frame structures." Report No. 132, The John A. Blume

Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA,

<http://blume.stanford.edu/tech_reports> (14 Aug. 2013).

Han, S. W., and Chopra, A. K. (2006). "Approximate incremental dynamic analysis using

the modal pushover analysis procedure." Earthquake Engineering & Structural

Dynamics, 35(15), 1853-1873.

Han, S. W., Moon, K.-H., and Chopra, A. K. (2010). "Application of MPA to estimate

probability of collapse of structures." Earthquake Engineering and Structural

Dynamics, 39(11), 1259-1278.

List of References 343

Haselton, C. B., and Baker, J. W. (2006). "Ground motion intensity measures for collapse

capacity prediction: choice of optimal spectral period and effect of spectral shape."

Proc., 8th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 18-22.

modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings." Report No. 156, The John A.

Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA,

<http://blume.stanford.edu/tech_reports> (14 Aug. 2013).

modern reinforced concrete moment-frame buildings." PEER Report 2007/08, Pacific

Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), University of California, Berkeley,

CA,

<http://peer.berkeley.edu/publications/peer_reports/reports_2007/reports_2007.html>

(14 Aug. 2013).

Haselton, C. B., Goulet, C. A., Mitrani-Reiser, J., Beck, J. L., Deierlein, G. G., Porter, K.

A., Stewart, J. P., and Taciroglu, E. (2008). "An assessment to benchmark the seismic

performance of a code-conforming reinforced concrete moment-frame building."

PEER Report 2007/12, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER),

University of California, Berkeley, CA,

<http://peer.berkeley.edu/publications/peer_reports/reports_2007/reports_2007.html>

(14 Aug. 2013).

Haselton, C. B., Baker, J. W., Liel, A. B., and Deierlein, G. G. (2011). "Accounting for

ground-motion spectral shape characteristics in structural collapse assessment through

an adjustment for epsilon." Journal of Structural Engineering, 137, 332-344.

Hines, E. M., Appel, M. E., and Cheever, P. J. (2009). "Collapse performance of low-

ductility chevron braced steel frames in moderate seismic regions." AISC Engineering

Journal, 46(3), 149-180.

Symposium on Earthquake and Blast Effects on Structures, Los Angeles, CA, 21-36.

List of References 344

Hsiao, P.-C., Lehman, D. E., and Roeder, C. W. (2013). "Evaluation of the response

modification coefficient and collapse potential of special concentrically braced

frames." Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 42(10), 1547-1564.

power plants for earthquake and blast loadings." PhD Dissertation, Department of

Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, State University of New York at

Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.

Ibarra, L., and Krawinkler, H. (2011). "Variance of collapse capacity of SDOF systems

under earthquake excitations." Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,

40(12), 1299-1314.

deteriorating SDOF systems." Proc., 12th European Conference on Earthquake

Engineering, London, UK, Paper 665, Elsevier Science Ltd., Sept. 9-13, 2002.

Ibarra, L. F. (2003). "Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations." PhD

Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford

University, Stanford, CA.

Ibarra, L. F., and Krawinkler, H. (2005). "Global collapse of frame structures under

seismic excitations." Report No. 152, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering

Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, <http://blume.stanford.edu/tech_reports>

(14 Aug. 2013).

Ibarra, L. F., Medina, R. A., and Krawinkler, H. (2005). "Hysteretic models that

incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration." Earthquake Engineering and

Structural Dynamics, 34(12), 1489-1511.

ICC (2003). International building code, International Code Council (ICC), Falls Church,

VA.

ICC (2005). International building code, International Code Council (ICC), Falls Church,

VA.

List of References 345

Jacobsen, L. S., and Ayre, R. S. (1952). "A comparative study of pulse and step-type

loads on a simple vibratory system." Technical Report No. 16, School of Engineering,

Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

dynamic assessments." PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA,

<http://blume.stanford.edu/rms_theses> (14 Aug. 2013).

Jalayer, F., Beck, J. L., Porter, K. A., and Hall, J. F. (2004). "Effects of ground motion

uncertainty on predicting the response of an existing RC frame structure." 13th World

Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada.

Jayaram, N., and Baker, J. W. (2008). "Statistical tests of the joint distribution of spectral

acceleration values." Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 98(5), 2231-

2243.

Jayaram, N., Lin, T., and Baker, J. W. (2011). "A computationally efficient ground-

motion selection algorithm for matching a target response spectrum mean and

variance." Earthquake Spectra, 27(3), 797-815.

earthquakes." Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division (ASCE), 94(5), 1045-1065.

Kadas, K., Yakut, A., and Kazaz, I. (2011). "Spectral ground motion intensity based on

capacity and period elongation." Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(3), 9.

table tests and nonlinear dynamic analyses." Proc., 2003 EERI Annual Meeting, EERI

Paper Competition Winner, Portland, OR.

List of References 346

techniques for concentrically braced frames designed in seismic regions." M.Eng

Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University,

Montreal, Canada, <http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca/thesisfile117045.pdf> (14 Aug.

2013).

Kennedy, R. P., Short, S. A., Merz, K. L., Tokarz, F. J., Idriss, I. M., Power, M. S., and

Sadigh, K. (1984). "Engineering characterization of ground motion. Task I: Effects of

characteristics of free-field motion on structural response." Report No. NUREG/CR-

3805, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC,

<http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/6848574> (14 Aug. 2013).

Earthquake engineering: from engineering seismology to performance-based

engineering, Y. Bozorgnia and V. V. Bertero, eds., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Krishnan, S., and Muto, M. (2012). "Mechanism of collapse of tall steel moment-frame

buildings under earthquake excitation." Journal of Structural Engineering, 138(11),

1361-1387.

Kurama, Y. C., and Farrow, K. T. (2003). "Ground motion scaling methods for different

site conditions and structure characteristics." Earthquake Engineering and Structural

Dynamics, 32(15), 2425-2450.

Lavan, O., Sivaselvan, M. V., Reinhorn, A. M., and Dargush, G. F. (2009). "Progressive

collapse analysis through strength degradation and fracture in the Mixed Lagrangian

Formulation." Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 38(13), 1483-1504.

Lee, K., and Foutch, D. A. (2002). "Performance evaluation of new steel frame buildings

for seismic loads." Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 31(3), 653-670.

systems representing low-ductility steel concentrically braced frames with reserve

capacity." Journal of Structural Engineering, 139(2), 199-211.

List of References 347

subjected to earthquakes." Structural Safety, 29(4), 294-307.

Liel, A. B., and Deierlein, G. G. (2008). "Assessing the collapse risk of Californias

existing reinforced concrete frame structures: metrics for seismic safety decisions."

Report No. 166, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford

University, Stanford, CA, <http://blume.stanford.edu/tech_reports> (14 Aug. 2013).

Liel, A. B., Haselton, C. B., Deierlein, G. G., and Baker, J. W. (2009). "Incorporating

modeling uncertainties in the assessment of seismic collapse risk of buildings."

Structural Safety, 31(2), 197-211.

Liel, A. B., Haselton, C. B., and Deierlein, G. G. (2011). "Seismic collapse safety of

reinforced concrete buildings. II: Comparative assessment of nonductile and ductile

moment frames." Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(4), 492-502.

component deterioration for collapse prediction of steel frame structures." ASCE

Structures Congress, Long Beach, CA.

Version 1.1.5, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford

University, <http://dimitrios-lignos.research.mcgill.ca/IIIDAP.html> (24 Feb. 2011).

Lignos, D. G., Eads, L., and Krawinkler, H. (2011a). "Effect of composite action on

collapse capacity of steel moment frames under earthquake loading." Proc.,

Eurosteel: 6th European Conference on Steel and Composite Structures, Budapest,

Hungary, Aug. 31 - Sept. 2, 2011.

in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading."

Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(11), 1291-1302.

List of References 348

Lignos, D. G., Krawinkler, H., and Whittaker, A. S. (2011b). "Prediction and validation

of sidesway collapse of two scale models of a 4-story steel moment frame."

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 40(7), 807-825.

systems under seismic excitations." Report No. 177, The John A. Blume Earthquake

Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA,

<http://blume.stanford.edu/tech_reports> (14 Aug. 2013).

component databases for performance-based earthquake engineering." Journal of

Structural Engineering, 139(8), 1382-1394.

Lignos, D. G., Hikino, T., Matsuoka, Y., and Nakashima, M. (2013). "Collapse

assessment of steel moment frames based on E-Defense full-scale shake table

collapse tests." Journal of Structural Engineering, 139(1), 120-132.

Lignos, D. G., and Karamanci, E. (2013). "Predictive equations for modeling cyclic

buckling and fracture of steel braces." 10th International Conference on Urban

Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan.

methodology." PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

Lin, T., Harmsen, S. C., Baker, J. W., and Luco, N. (2013a). "Conditional spectrum

computation incorporating multiple causal earthquakes and ground motion prediction

models." Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 103(2A), 1103-1116.

Lin, T., Haselton, C. B., and Baker, J. W. (2013b). "Conditional spectrum-based ground

motion selection. Part I: Hazard consistency for risk-based assessments." Earthquake

Engineering & Structural Dynamics, (in press).

List of References 349

Luco, N., and Bazzurro, P. (2007). "Does amplitude scaling of ground motion records

result in biased nonlinear structural drift responses?" Earthquake Engineering &

Structural Dynamics, 36(13), 1813-1835.

Luco, N., and Cornell, C. A. (2007). "Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for

near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions." Earthquake Spectra, 23(2),

357-392.

Luco, N., Ellingwood, B., Hamburger, R., Hooper, J., Kimball, J., and Kircher, C. (2007).

"Risk-targeted versus current seismic design maps for the conterminous United

States." Proc., SEAOC 2007 Convention, Squaw Creek, California, 163-175, Sept.

26-29, 2007.

Makris, N., and Black, C. J. (2004). "Evaluation of peak ground velocity as a good

intensity measure for near-source ground motions." Journal of Engineering

Mechanics, 130(9), 1032-1044.

fault ground motions." Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 93(3), 1099.

analysis, algorithms and parallel computing." PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil

and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA,

<http://opensees.berkeley.edu/OpenSees/doc/fmkdiss.pdf> (14 Aug. 2013).

(OpenSees), Version 2.1.1, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center

(PEER), <http://opensees.berkeley.edu> (6 June 2010).

Medina, R. A., and Krawinkler, H. (2003). "Seismic demands for nondeteriorating frame

structures and their dependence on ground motions." Report No. 144, The John A.

Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA,

<http://blume.stanford.edu/tech_reports> (14 Aug. 2013).

List of References 350

performance of composite frames with reinforced concrete columns and steel beams."

Report No. 135, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford

University, Stanford, CA, <http://blume.stanford.edu/tech_reports> (14 Aug. 2013).

Menun, C., and Fu, Q. (2002). "An analytical model for near-fault ground motions and

the response of SDOF systems." Proc., 7th US National Conference on Earthquake

Engineering, Boston, Massachusetts.

Journal of Structural Engineering, 127(9), 1005-1012.

Miranda, E., and Akkar, S. D. (2003). "Dynamic instability of simple structural systems."

Journal of Structural Engineering, 129(12), 1722-1726.

Mousavi, M., Ghafory-Ashtiany, M., and Azarbakht, A. (2011). "A new indicator of

elastic spectral shape for the reliable selection of ground motion records." Earthquake

Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 40(12), 1403-1416.

ASCE, 85(3), 67-94.

Newmark, N. M. (1973). "A study of vertical and horizontal earthquake spectra." Report

No. WASH-1255, US Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, DC.

building seismic performance factors." NIST GCR 10-917-8, prepared by the NEHRP

Consultants Joint Venture for the National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST), Gaithersburg, MD.

NIST (2011). "Selecting and scaling earthquake ground motions for performing response-

history analyses." NIST GCR 11-917-15, prepared by the NEHRP Consultants Joint

Venture for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg,

Maryland.

List of References 351

elastoplastic systems: a new approach." Earthquake Engineering & Structural

Dynamics, 27(9), 889-901.

Ordaz, M., Martinelli, F., DAmico, V., and Meletti, C. (2013). "CRISIS2008: a flexible

tool to perform probabilistic seismic hazard assessment." Seismological Research

Letters, 84(3), 495-504.

seismic design." Report No. 90, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center,

Stanford University, Stanford, CA, <http://blume.stanford.edu/tech_reports> (14

Aug. 2013).

(PEER) Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA,

<http://peer.berkeley.edu/ngawest2/final-products> (14 Aug. 2013).

Petersen, M. D., Frankel, A. D., Harmsen, S. C., Mueller, C. S., Haller, K. M., Wheeler,

R. L., Wesson, R. L., Zeng, Y., Boyd, O. S., Perkins, D. M., Luco, N., Field, E. H.,

Wills, C. J., and Rukstales, K. S. (2008). "Documentation for the 2008 update of the

United States National Seismic Hazard Maps." Open-File Report 20081128, United

States Geological Survey (USGS), Reston, VA, <http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1128>

(14 Aug. 2013).

Power, M., Chiou, B., Abrahamson, N., Bozorgnia, Y., Shantz, T., and Roblee, C. (2008).

"An overview of the NGA project." Earthquake Spectra, 24(1), 3-21.

Power, M. S., Youngs, R. R., and Chin, C.-C. (2007). "Design ground motion library."

Report of PEER-LL Program Task 1F01, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research

(PEER) Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA,

<http://peer.berkeley.edu/lifelines/lifelines_pre_2006/final_reports/1F01-FR.pdf> (14

Aug. 2013).

List of References 352

Riddell, R. (2007). "On ground motion intensity indices." Earthquake Spectra, 23(1),

147-173.

Rubinstein, R. Y., and Kroese, D. P. (2008). Simulation and the Monte Carlo method,

2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.

structures accounting for residual displacements." Report No. 153, The John A.

Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA,

<http://blume.stanford.edu/tech_reports> (14 Aug. 2013).

Scott, M., and Fenves, G. (2010). "Krylov subspace accelerated newton algorithm:

application to dynamic progressive collapse simulation of frames." Journal of

Structural Engineering, 136(5), 473-480.

Seed, H. B., Murarka, R., Lysmer, J., and Idriss, I. M. (1976). "Relationships of

maximum acceleration, maximum velocity, distance from source, and local site

conditions for moderately strong earthquakes." Bulletin of the Seismological Society

of America, 66(4), 1323-1342.

Sewell, R. T., Toro, G. R., and McGuire, R. K. (1996). "Impact of ground motion

characterization on conservatism and variability in seismic risk estimates." Report

No. NUREG/CR--6467, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC,

<http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/285473> (14 Aug. 2013).

Shafei, B., Zareian, F., and Lignos, D. G. (2011). "A simplified method for collapse

capacity assessment of moment-resisting frame and shear wall structural systems."

Engineering Structures, 33(4), 1107-1116.

setback buildings under bidirectional excitation." Journal of Structural Engineering,

posted ahead of print February 28, 2013.

Shome, N., Cornell, C. A., Bazzurro, P., and Carballo, J. E. (1998). "Earthquakes,

records, and nonlinear responses." Earthquake Spectra, 14(3), 469-500.

List of References 353

nonlinear structures." Report No. RMS-35, RMS Program, Stanford University,

Stanford, CA, <http://blume.stanford.edu/rms-reports> (14 Aug. 2013).

Sivaselvan, M., and Reinhorn, A. (2002). "Collapse analysis: large inelastic deformations

analysis of planar frames." Journal of Structural Engineering, 128(12), 1575-1583.

simulation." Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 132(8), 795-805.

Sivaselvan, M. V., Lavan, O., Dargush, G. F., Kurino, H., Hyodo, Y., Fukuda, R., Sato,

K., Apostolakis, G., and Reinhorn, A. M. (2009). "Numerical collapse simulation of

large scale structural systems using an optimization based algorithm." Earthquake

Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 38(5), 655-677.

Song, J., and Ellingwood, B. (1999a). "Seismic reliability of special moment steel frames

with welded connections: I." Journal of Structural Engineering, 125(4), 357-371.

Song, J., and Ellingwood, B. (1999b). "Seismic reliability of special moment steel frames

with welded connections: II." Journal of Structural Engineering, 125(4), 372-384.

performance of concentrically braced frames." PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil

and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana,

IL.

Sucuoglu, H., Erberik, M., and Yucemen, M. (1999). "Influence of peak ground velocity

on seismic failure probability." Proc., Proc. 4th Int. Conf. of the European

Association for Structural Dynamics (EURODYN99), Prague, Czech Republic.

Sun, C.-K., Berg, G. V., and Hanson, R. D. (1973). "Gravity effect on single-degree

inelastic system." Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 99(1), 183-200.

List of References 354

acceleration demands in multi-story buildings." Report No. 162, The John A. Blume

Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA,

<http://blume.stanford.edu/tech_reports> (14 Aug. 2013).

Takizawa, H., and Jennings, P. C. (1980). "Collapse of a model for ductile reinforced

concrete frames under extreme earthquake motions." Earthquake Engineering and

Structural Dynamics, 8(2), 117-144.

Tothong, P., and Cornell, C. A. (2006). "An empirical ground-motion attenuation relation

for inelastic spectral displacement." Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,

96(6), 2146-2164.

Tothong, P., and Luco, N. (2007). "Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced

ground motion intensity measures." Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,

36(13), 1837-1860.

review." Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 29(4), 591-606.

Tsantaki, S., Jger, C., and Adam, C. (2012). "Improved seismic collapse prediction of

inelastic simple systems vulnerable to the P-delta effect based on average spectral

acceleration." 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.

Tsantaki, S., and Adam, C. (2013). "Collapse capacity spectra based on an improved

intensity measure." COMPDYN 2013: 4th International Conference on

Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Kos

Island, Greece.

ground motion A/V ratio." Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 11(3), 133-

144.

Whittier, CA.

List of References 355

USGS (2012a). "Hazard Curve Application." United States Geological Survery (USGS),

<http://geohazards.usgs.gov/hazardtool> (14 March 2013).

(USGS), <http://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008> (14 March 2013).

seen through incremental dynamic analysis." PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil

and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA,

<http://blume.stanford.edu/rms_theses> (14 Aug. 2013).

Earthquake Spectra, 20(2), 523-553.

reliability of structures as seen through Incremental Dynamic Analysis." Report No.

151, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University,

Stanford, CA, <http://blume.stanford.edu/tech_reports> (14 Aug. 2013).

Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C. A. (2005b). "Developing efficient scalar and vector

intensity measures for IDA capacity estimation by incorporating elastic spectral shape

information." Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 34(13), 1573-1600.

Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C. A. (2006). "Direct estimation of the seismic demand

and capacity of oscillators with multi-linear static pushovers through IDA."

Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 35(9), 1097-1117.

estimating seismic performance sensitivity and uncertainty." Earthquake Engineering

& Structural Dynamics, 39(2), 141-163.

SAC/FEMA probabilistic format for performance assessment." Proc., 15th World

Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.

List of References 356

Vian, D., and Bruneau, M. (2003). "Tests to structural collapse of single degree of

freedom frames subjected to earthquake excitations." Journal of Structural

Engineering, 129(12), 1676-1685.

structures: state of the art." Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE), 133(1), 57-66.

Wang, T., Mosqueda, G., Jacobsen, A., and Cortes-Delgado, M. (2012). "Performance

evaluation of a distributed hybrid test framework to reproduce the collapse behavior

of a structure." Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 41(2), 295-313.

11(2), 269-296.

inference." Journal of the American Statistical Association, 22(158), 209-212.

design for collapse safety." Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,

36(13), 1901-1914.

variations in structural systems and structural parameters." Structures Congress 2007,

Long Beach, CA.

engineering." Report No. 169, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center,

Stanford University, Stanford, CA, <http://blume.stanford.edu/tech_reports> (14

Aug. 2013).

Zareian, F., and Medina, R. A. (2010). "A practical method for proper modeling of

structural damping in inelastic plane structural systems." Computers & Structures,

88(1-2), 45-53.

List of References 357

Zhu, T. J., Heidebrecht, A. C., and Tso, W. K. (1988). "Effect of peak ground

acceleration to velocity ratio on ductility demand of inelastic systems." Earthquake

Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 16(1), 63-79.

- Remediation View for SAP GRCUploaded byOlusanya Adeniran
- Statistics GuideUploaded byRajesh Patel
- Tutorial 3003Uploaded byOntell Mimi Lolo
- Sample Exams - Aaec 3401Uploaded byjamaica46
- Citatie Galiatsatou PAPER 416Uploaded byrsiqueirasantos5711
- Assignment 4(2) - Engineering Statistics.pdfUploaded byNamra Fatima
- Confidence LevelUploaded byMuhammad Nauman Usmani
- Mannes_2012_ Shorn Scalps and Perceptions of Male DominanceUploaded byMarcelo Luz
- stats semester projectUploaded byapi-276989071
- wantUploaded byNils Verborg
- management thesis guidelines for studentsUploaded bysekhar1988_k
- Wendorf ReportingStatisticsUploaded byAlina Ciabuca
- 343StatMech_ch1Uploaded bykss1234
- PrognosisforGrossMotorFunction.pdfUploaded byAsesino Guerrero
- HW#1.1Uploaded byEnrique Gonzalez
- Dhera Edution KontrolUploaded byDelia Do Rosario
- reportonstatisticalanalysisUploaded byrubayat-sarwar-chowdhury-4689
- 81854 ST SlidesUploaded bychandra
- Tema4_EstimacioIntervalsUploaded byXavier Jiménez
- 10_HW_Assignment_Biostat.docxUploaded byjhon
- Gauging Gage MinitabUploaded byFrancisco Hernandez
- 2 C - Signal Software PaperUploaded byEsra'a Alhaj
- LightbulbsUploaded byxongassilva
- 322 Midterm 1a 2015 answers.docxUploaded byamyse56
- PERFORMANCE-TASK-IN-STATISTICS-AND-PROBABILITY.docxUploaded byAnn Gutlay
- Social Security: apxUploaded bySocial Security
- Stats Calc SheetUploaded byJoshua Poblete Directo
- 92140Uploaded byContinuing Education at the University of Vermont
- Mekb Module 10Uploaded byKashif Ur Rehman
- Detecting Cumulative Watershed EffectsUploaded byAnonymous orJf8e1kk

- FEMA P695 - Quantification of Building Seismic Performance FactorsUploaded byGiapVap
- Evaluating Effects of Brace Configuration and Structure Height on Seismic Performance of Buckling Restrained Braced Frames Based on Probabilistic Seismic Analysis (1)Uploaded byEdris Salehi Golsefidi
- TOEFL_ for Academic Institutions_ Compare ScoresUploaded byEdris Salehi Golsefidi
- s1-ln868152020758597-1939656818Hwf1009150922IdV110381131986815PDF_HI0001Uploaded byEdris Salehi Golsefidi
- 2010-Seismic Performance of Jacket Type Offshore Platforms Through Incremental Dynamic AnalysisUploaded byEdris Salehi Golsefidi
- 03_SDOF_Harmonic1 [Compatibility Mode].pdfUploaded byEdris Salehi Golsefidi
- 04 SDOF Harmonic2 [Compatibility Mode]Uploaded byEdris Salehi Golsefidi
- 05 SDOF Harmonic Periodic [Compatibility Mode]Uploaded byEdris Salehi Golsefidi
- 06 SDOF Nonperiodic Numerical [Compatibility Mode]Uploaded byEdris Salehi Golsefidi
- 02 SDOF FreeVib [Compatibility Mode]Uploaded byEdris Salehi Golsefidi
- 01_Overview of Str Dyn [Compatibility Mode]Uploaded byEdris Salehi Golsefidi
- WebPEER 2013 03 AnchetaUploaded byEdris Salehi Golsefidi
- Determining the Redundancy FactorUploaded byEdris Salehi Golsefidi
- Peer Newsletter 3-00Uploaded byEdris Salehi Golsefidi

- uji tukey HSD.pdfUploaded bydasrial
- Lab Report InstructionsUploaded byGonzalo Elle
- Econ 41 SyllabusUploaded bythatscribdacnt
- F494-05(2016)Uploaded byAlevj Db
- Critical Characteristics Review Guide Revision-A (5!11!2012) Distribution Statement-A Approved for Public ReleaseUploaded byvkms
- Jsmith Microbe 09Uploaded byLionel Pinuer
- rp5Uploaded byRavikanth
- 118 Compensation Policy and Return to Work Effectiveness (ComPARE) Project: Introductory ReportUploaded byISCRR
- Art [OlivotoT Et Al 2017] Optimal Sample Size and Data Arrangement Method in Estimating Correlation Matrices With Lesse CollinearityUploaded byIsmael Neu
- Chapter 12Uploaded byDavizas
- Unbiased Estimation of the Black Scholes FormulaUploaded byZhang Peilin
- HERMES D61 CognitiveTrainingExercises FinalUploaded byVazia Rahma Handika