A framework for the evaluation of ground motion selection and modification procedures. (23rd October 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kwong, N. Simon; Chopra, Anil K.; McGuire, Robin K.
• Is Part Of: Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics. Volume 44:Number 5(2015:Apr.)
• Page Start: 795
• Page End: 815
• Publication Date: 2014-10-23
• Subjects: ground motion selection -- evaluation of GMSM procedures -- nonlinear response history analysis -- seismic demand hazard curve -- benchmark -- probabilistic seismic hazard analysis -- probabilistic seismic demand analysis -- IM sufficiency -- hazard consistency; Structural dynamics -- Periodicals; Earthquake engineering -- Periodicals; 624.1762
• DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2502
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0098-8847

Abstract

Summary: This study develops a framework to evaluate ground motion selection and modification (GMSM) procedures. The context is probabilistic seismic demand analysis, where response history analyses of a given structure, using ground motions determined by a GMSM procedure, are performed in order to estimate the seismic demand hazard curve (SDHC) for the structure at a given site. Currently, a GMSM procedure is evaluated in this context by comparing several resulting estimates of the SDHC, each derived from a different definition of the conditioning intensity measure (IM). Using a simple case study, we demonstrate that conclusions from such an approach are not always definitive; therefore, an alternative approach is desirable. In the alternative proposed herein, all estimates of the SDHC from GMSM procedures are compared against a benchmark SDHC, under a common set of ground motion information. This benchmark SDHC is determined by incorporating a prediction model for the seismic demand into the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis calculations. To develop an understanding of why one GMSM procedure may provide more accurate estimates of the SDHC than another procedure, we identify the role of 'IM sufficiency' in the relationship between (i) bias in the SDHC estimate and (ii) 'hazard consistency' of the corresponding ground motions obtained from a GMSM procedure. Finally, we provide examples of how misleading conclusions may potentially be obtained from erroneous implementations of the proposed framework. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.