MSc Earthquake Engineering with

Disaster Management Impact of Uniform Hazard Spectrum versus

Omar Alejandro Velázquez Ortíz
Carlos Molina Hutt (UCL)
Conditional Mean Spectrum on Structural
Dr Carmine Galasso (UCL)
Seyedamirhossein Ghazizadeh (UCL) Response
UCL Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering
Gower St, London, WC1E 6BT

1.0 MOTIVATION 2.2. SELECTION AND MATCHING OF GROUND

MOTIONS TO TARGET SPECTRUM
Nowadays performance based earthquake 2.5
Ground Motion spectra
1.8
Ground Motion spectra
1.6
engineering includes seismic rules for the Mean Spectrum UHS

Spectral Acceleration (g)

Spectral Acceleration (g)

2 1.4
UHS Mean Spectrum
1.2
design of structures using nonlinear time 1.5
1
0.8
history analyses. These analyses are 1
0.6

performed using ground motions from 0.5 0.4

0.2

recorded or simulated earthquakes that 0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Period (s) Period (s)
FIGURE 01. SAN FRANCISCO, CA. SITE OF STUDY
(SOURCE: GOOGLE MAPS, 2014) usually are selected and scaled given a FIGURE 03. 30 SCALED GROUND MOTIONS TO UHS USING REXEL FIGURE 04. 30 SCALED GROUND MOTIONS TO UHS USING SEISMOMATCH

representative earthquake scenario or compatible with a defined target

1.6
spectrum. 2
1.8
Ground Motion Spectra
UHS 1.4
FIGURE 04.SEISMOMATCH

Spectral Acceleration (g)

CMS 0.3s

Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.6 1.2
1.4
1
In literature, up to 40 different methods and variants can be found for 1.2
1
0.8
! #! D"
the selection of sets of ground motions based on different criteria 0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
! #! C"
(Haselton, 2009)1. Currently the most commonly used are the Uniform 0.4
0.2

) *+,- . - "/ ,012*34- 456"7- 8"

0.2
0 ! #! B"
Hazard Spectrum (which has been used for the selection of ground 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Period (s)
3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Period (s)
motions for the past two decades and it is implemented in several FIGURE 05. 40 SACLED GROUND MOTIONS TO CS CONDITIONED AT 0.3s ! #! A" 06. 40 SACLED GROUND MOTIONS TO CS CONDITIONED AT 0.5s
FIGURE

building codes) and the Conditional Mean Spectrum (CMS) (NIST., 2

2
! #! $"
1.8
2011)2. 1.8 ! #! ( "

Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.6

Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.6
1.4
1.4
1.2 ! #! ' "
1.2
1
The present project studies the impact of using UHS and CMS as target 0.8
0.8
1
! #! &"
0.6
spectrum for the selection of ground motions on structural response. In 0.4
0.6
0.4 ! #! %"
0.2 0.2
order to carry out this study, Nonlinear Time History Analysis (NTHA) 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
0 !"
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Period (s)
are performed on a hypothetical structure located in the city of San FIGURE 07. 40 SACLED GROUND MOTIONS TO CS CONDITIONED AT 1s
Period (s)
FIGURE 08. 40 SACLED GROUND MOTIONS TO CS CONDITIONED AT 2s
Francisco, California (selected as it represents a city situated in a high
30 GMs scaled to UHS by using REXEL, 30 GMs matching to UHS
seismic area). " #$%! &' $%( $)( !* #+,$' ,- %!./ 0!
SeismoMatch, and 40 GMs matched to CMS (0.3s, 0.5s, 1s, and 2s) as 1- #22,3
2.0 METHODOLOGY
1" &!@8! ! "! $$) $& ! "! ' , *+&
target spectrum using the Matlab &#,89 -script
" $' 3: ! developed
! "! ' ***& by ! "!Baker
! ( $+& and
Jayaram (actually using Conditional Spectrum !(CS)
; <=<>! "! #' ' $&as target ! "! spectrum),
' +#! &
In order to analyse the impact of using UHS or CMS on structural were obtained.
response, sixteen Single Degree of Freedom (SDOF) systems with
different elastic and inelastic properties were modelled subjected to 220 2.3 NONLINEAR TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS
different ground motions (GMs). The structural analysis was carried out
by using OpenSees. The maximum displacement of each SDOF after
the analysis was considered as the value to compare in order to assess
the response of the system. Record selection was done by using three
different methodologies, addition of wavelets to the natural GMs (by
using SeismoMatch), linear scaling (by using REXEL), and matching the FIGURE 09. HYPOTHETICAL
SDOF SYSTEM FIGURE 10. ELASTIC PLASTIC BEHAVIOUR OF THE
mean and variability of the response (by using a Matlab script STRUCTURE (SOURCE: GALASSO, ET AL. (2012) 4)

developed by Baker and Jayaram). For this study Probabilistic Seismic Structural analyses were performed using NTHA for different Single
Hazard Assessment (PSHA) was run for San Francisco, CA, for the Degree of Freedom (SDOF) Systems. These SDOF systems were
calculation of UHS and CMS. modelled elastically and inelastically, assuming steel properties with
2.1 PSHA FOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA elastic-perfectly-plastic behaviour, with periods equal to 0.3, 0.5, 1 and
2s, and strength reduction factors, R (parameter that defines the ratio of
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) was carried out by
the GM elastic force to the yield strength of the SDOF system), equal to
using the hazard tools provided by the United States Geological Survey
1, 2, 4, and 8. Maximum displacements of the system were obtained
(http://geohazards.usgs.gov/hazardtool/application.php) and one Matlab
from these analyses as key parameters for the comparison of results.
Script developed by the Baker Research Group

3.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

(http://web.stanford.edu/~bakerjw/index.htm), to obtain UHS and CMS
(conditioned at 0.3s, 0.5s, 1a, and 2s) for San Francisco, California,
respectively. 0.05
0.09

0.08
0.045
Maximum Displacement (m)
Maximum Displacement (m)

0.04 0.07

0.035
UHS is constructed by enveloping the spectral ordinates at all periods 0.03
0.06

0.05

that are exceeded with 10% probability of exceedence in 50 years by 0.025

0.02
0.04

0.03
using PSHA for all these periods (Baker, 2011) 3. 0.015
0.01 0.02

0.005 0.01
0 0
CMS conditions at a target value Sa(T*) all the spectral ordinates giving CMS 1s SeismoMatch REXEL CMS 1s SeismoMatch REXEL

FIGURE 11. MAIN RESULTS FOUND ON THE STUDY IN TERMS OF MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENTS (m). (LEFT- SDOF SYSTEM T=1s, R=2. RIGHT – SDOF
to all the periods the same probability of ocurrence given Sa(T*). (NIST., SYSTEM T=2s, R=8)

2011)2. The main results found in the study are summarised below:

1.2
UHS
• For SDOF systems, the target spectrum used for the selection of GMs
CMS 0.3s
CMS 0.5s
(UHS or CMS) does not have a considerable impact on median
1
CMS 1s
CMS 2s
structural response. Moreover, the selection based on the CMS or
UHS + wavelets results in smaller variability of the structural response
Spectral Acceleration (g)

0.8

compared to the selection based on UHS + linear scaling

0.6

0.4 • For elastic SDOF systems (R=1) the ground motions obtained by
0.2
using CMS as target spectrum present a very small variability in the
response of the SDOF subjected to those ground motions.
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Period (s)

FIGURE 03. UNIFORM HAZARD SPECTRUM (UHS), AND CONDITIONAL MEAN SPECTRA (CMS) CONDITIONED AT 0.3s, 0.5s, 1s, and 2s, for SAN
• The range of periods where ground motions are matched to UHS must
FRANCISCO, CA. (PROBABILITY OF EXCEENDCE 10% IN 50 YEARS) be carefully selected avoiding inconsistency in the results.
REFERENCES
1 Haselton, C.B. (Editor) 2009. Evaluation of ground motion selection and modification methods: Predicting median interstory drift response of buildings, PEER Report 2009/01, Pacific Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California.
2 NIST., 2011. Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing Response-History Analyses. Prepared by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture for the National Institute of Standard and Technology
3 Baker, J.W., 2011. Conditional Mean Spectrum: Tool for ground motion selection. Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(3), pp. 322-331
4 Galasso, C., Zareian, F., Iervolino, I. & Graves, R. W., 2012. Validation of Ground-Motion Simulations for Historical Events Using SDoF Systems. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December, 102(6), pp. 2727-2740.