Premium
Identification of critical ground motions for seismic performance assessment of structures
Author(s) -
Dhakal Rajesh P.,
Mander John B.,
Mashiko Naoto
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
earthquake engineering and structural dynamics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.218
H-Index - 127
eISSN - 1096-9845
pISSN - 0098-8847
DOI - 10.1002/eqe.568
Subject(s) - ground motion , structural engineering , pier , incremental dynamic analysis , percentile , engineering , bridge (graph theory) , event (particle physics) , probabilistic logic , seismic analysis , earthquake engineering , earthquake simulation , identification (biology) , peak ground acceleration , earthquake shaking table , geology , statistics , mathematics , medicine , physics , botany , quantum mechanics , biology
A method is established to identify critical earthquake ground motions that are to be used in physical testing or subsequent advanced computational studies to enable seismic performance to be assessed. The ground motion identification procedure consists of: choosing a suitable suite of ground motions and an appropriate intensity measure; selecting a computational tool and modelling the structure accordingly; performing Incremental Dynamic Analysis on a non‐linear model of the structure; interpreting these results into 50th (median) and 90th percentile performance bounds; and identifying the critical ground motions that are close to these defining probabilistic curves at ground motion intensities corresponding to the design basis earthquake and the maximum considered earthquake. An illustrative example of the procedure is given for a reinforced concrete highway bridge pier designed to New Zealand specifications. Pseudodynamic tests and finite element based time history analyses are performed on the pier using three earthquake ground motions identified as: (i) a Design Basis Earthquake (10% probability in 50 years) with 90 percent confidence of non‐exceedance; (ii) a Maximum Considered Event (2% probability in 50 years) representing a median response; and (iii) a Maximum Considered Event representing 90 percent confidence of non‐exceedance. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.