Abstract
AbstractThe emphasis of seismic design regulations on applying nonlinear dynamic analyses (NDAs) promotes using accelerograms that characterize site-specific ground motions. Commonly, amplitude levels of such accelerograms are defined by a target spectrum that could be based on a uniform hazard spectrum (UHS), which is determined by a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) and represents a response spectrum with ordinates having an equal probability of being exceeded within a given return period, $${T}_{r}$$
T
r
. Conversely, the definition of ground-motion duration levels is not yet properly defined in current regulations to select accelerograms. Thus, adhering to data handling as that for amplitude ground-motion parameters, this study motivates executing PSHAs to define hazard-consistent levels for the ground-motion duration. That is, accelerograms can be selected to match both amplitude and duration ground-motion levels associated with $${T}_{r}$$
T
r
. Further, fragility functions conditional on $${T}_{r}$$
T
r
that cover typical performance objectives can be developed using sets of hazard-consistent accelerograms to implement, e.g., multiple stripe analyses (MSAs). To demonstrate the importance of choosing fully hazard-consistent accelerograms to perform NDAs, this study includes the displacement- and energy-based seismic-response evaluation of a steel frame building located at different soil-profile sites in Mexico City. Sets of fully hazard-consistent accelerograms and solely amplitude-based hazard-consistent accelerograms were artificially generated per site for values of $${T}_{r}$$
T
r
up to 5000 years. Results indicate that the probability of failure can be underestimated if the ground-motion duration is unvaried in MSAs, e.g., structural damage caused by 50-year return-period or higher events can be more noticeable when fully hazard-consistent accelerograms take place.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference57 articles.
1. Afshari K, Stewart JP (2016) Physically parameterized prediction equations for significant duration in active crustal regions. Earthq Spectra 32:2057–2081. https://doi.org/10.1193/063015EQS106M
2. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2022) Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia
3. Anderson JG (2003) Strong-motion seismology. In: Lee WHK, Kanamori H, Jennings PC, Kisslinger C (eds) International handbook of earthquake and engineering seismology, part B, 1st edn. Academic Press, pp 937–965
4. Arias A (1970) A measure of earthquake intensity. In: Hansen RJ (ed) Seismic design for nuclear power plants. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp 438–483
5. Arora S, Joshi A, Kumari P et al (2020) Strong ground motion simulation techniques—a review in world context. Arab J Geosci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-05583-5