To quantitatively evaluate the destructive capacity of ground motions for Chinese seismic design, a method to rank the ground motion based on a new comprehensive intensity measure is proposed. A total of 5535 ground motions from NGA-West2 database were used as the input ground motions for dynamic time history analysis to four typical reinforced concrete structures. By performing correlation analysis on the ground motion intensity measures (IMs) and structural response parameters, two optimal IMs, including the peak ground velocity and the relative input energy, are first selected to represent the damage capacity of ground motion. Through regression analysis, a new comprehensive IM is proposed to quantitatively describe the destructive capacity of ground motions. Then based on the proposed comprehensive intensity measure, all ground motions are ranked from first to last. Finally, the comparison with other methods proves the feasibility of the proposed ranking method in quantitatively describing the destructive capacity of ground motions.
AdamCKampenhuberDIbarraLF, et al. (2017) Optimal spectral acceleration-based intensity measure for seismic collapse assessment of P-delta vulnerable frame structures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering21(7): 1–7.
2.
American Society of Civil Engineers (2010) Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. ASCE/SEI Standard. Reston, VR: American Society of Civil Engineers
3.
BakerJWCornellC (2005) A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics34(10): 1193–1217.
4.
BakerJWAllinCA (2011) Conditional mean spectrum: tool for ground-motion selection. Journal of Structural Engineering137(3): 322–331.
5.
BommerJJMartinezPA (1999) The effective duration of earthquake strong motion. Journal of Earthquake Engineering3(2): 127–172.
6.
DávalosHMirandaE (2019) Filtered incremental velocity: a novel approach in intensity measures for seismic collapse estimation. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics48(12): 1–22.
7.
DuYXGongMSXieLL (2017) Seismic analysis method of RC frame structure considering the excitations of twice earthquakes. World Earthquake Engineering33(01): 77–85. (in Chinese).
8.
Eurocode 8 (2004) European prestandard. CEN: ENV 1998-1-1.
9.
FEMA 356 (2000) Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
10.
FoxMJSullivanTJ (2016) Use of the conditional spectrum to incorporate record-to-record variability in simplified seismic assessment of RC wall buildings. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics45(3): 463–482.
11.
GoodmanS (2008) A dirty dozen: twelve p-value misconceptions. Seminars in hematology. WB Saunders45(3): 135–140.
12.
GuoFWuDMXuGF, et al. (2011) Site classification corresponding relationship between Chinese and the overseas seismic design codes. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management28(2): 63–66. (in Chinese).
13.
HartzellS (2002) Simulation of broadband ground motion including nonlinear soil effects for a magnitude 6.5 earthquake on the Seattle fault, Seattle, Washington. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America92(2): 831–853.
14.
HuJJWuWCXieLL (2013) Review and analysis of cumulative absolute velocity related parameters of ground motion. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics33(5): 1–8. (in Chinese).
15.
HuYX (2006) Earthquake Engineering Seismological Press. (in Chinese)
16.
JiKBouaananiNWenRZ (2018) Introduction of conditional mean spectrum and conditional spectrum in the practice of seismic safety evaluation in China. Journal of Seismology22(3): 1–20.
17.
KrawinklerHMedinaRAlaviB (2003) Seismic drift and ductility demands and their dependence on ground motions. Engineering Structures25(5): 637–653.
18.
KostinakisKFontaraIKAthanatopoulouAM (2017) Scalar structure-specific ground motion intensity measures for assessing the seismic performance of structures: a review. Journal of Earthquake Engineering22(4): 1–36.
19.
LiCZhaiCKunnathS, et al. (2019) Methodology for selection of the most damaging ground motions for nuclear power plant structures. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering116: 345–357.
20.
LinTHaseltonCBBakerJW (2013) Conditional spectrum-based ground motion selection. Part I: hazard consistency for risk-based assessments. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics42(12): 1847–1865.
21.
LucoNCornellCA (2007) Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake motions. Earthquake Spectra23(2): 357–392.
22.
MalekmohammadiMPezeshkS (2015) Ground motion site amplification factors for sites located within the Mississippi embayment with consideration of deep soil deposits. Earthquake Spectra31(2): 699–722.
23.
Ministry of Construction (2010) Code for seismic design of buildings GB50011-2010. Beijing, China.
24.
PadgettJENielsonBGDesRochesR (2008) Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics37(5): 711–725.
25.
SextosAGKatsanosEIManolisGD (2011) EC8-based earthquake record selection procedure evaluation: validation study based on observed damage of an irregular R/C building. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering31(4): 583–597.
26.
ShiWPanPYeL, et al. (2013) Skyline-based ground motion selection method for nonlinear time history analysis of building structures. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics42(9): 1361–1373.
TakewakiIMoustafaAFujitaK (2013) Use of Deterministic and Probabilistic Measures to Identify Unfavorable Earthquake Records Improving the Earthquake Resilience of Buildings. London, UK: Springer.
29.
TropeanoGSoccodatoFMSilvestriF (2018) Re-evaluation of code-specified stratigraphic amplification factors based on Italian experimental records and numerical seismic response analyses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering110(0): 262–275.
30.
VillaverdeR (2007) Methods to assess the seismic collapse capacity of building structures: state of the art. Journal of Structural Engineering133(1): 57–66.
31.
WangG (2012) Efficiency of scalar and vector intensity measures for seismic slope displacements. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering6(1): 44–52.
32.
WangDH (2010) Multivariate Statistical Analysis and SPSS Application. Sanghai, China: Ast China University of Science and Technology Press. (in Chinese).
33.
Watson-LampreyJAbrahamsonN (2006) Selection of ground motion time series and limits on scaling. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering26(5): 477–482.
34.
XieLLZhaiCH (2003) Research on the severest design ground motion. Acta Seismologica Sinica5(3): 250–261.
35.
XuLJZhaoGCChenYB, et al. (2015) A probabilistic methodology to determine elastic acceleration response spectra for pulse-type records through multi-resolution analyses. Journal of Earthquake Engineering20(1): 1–27.
36.
YakhchalianMAmiriGG (2018) A vector intensity measure to reliably predict maximum drift in low- to mid-rise buildings. Structures & Buildings172(1): 42–54.
37.
YangCXieLLiA, et al. (2019) Ground motion intensity measures for seismically isolated RC tall buildings. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering125: 105727. DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105727.
38.
YazdaniAYazdannejadK (2019) Estimation of the seismic demand model for different damage levels. Engineering Structures194(1): 183–195.
39.
ZelaschiCMonteiroRPinhoR (2017) Critical assessment of intensity measures for seismic response of Italian RC bridge portfolios. Journal of Earthquake Engineering23(6): 980–1000.
40.
ZhaiC-HXieL-L (2007) A new approach of selecting real input ground motions for seismic design: the most unfavourable real seismic design ground motions. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics36(8): 1009–1027.
41.
ZhaiCChangZLiS, et al. (2013) Selection of the most unfavorable real ground motions for low- and mid-rise RC frame structures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering17(8): 1233–1251.
