This study examines the influence of ground motion duration on the collapse capacities of a modern five-story steel moment frame and a reinforced concrete bridge pier. The effect of duration is isolated from the effects of ground motion amplitude and response spectral shape by assembling sets of “spectrally equivalent” long and short duration records and employing them in comparative nonlinear dynamic analyses. For the modern steel moment frame, the estimated median collapse capacity is 29% lower when using the long duration set, as compared to the short duration set. For the concrete bridge pier, the collapse capacity is 17% lower. A comparison of commonly used duration metrics indicates that significant duration is the most suitable metric to characterize ground motion duration for structural analysis. Sensitivity analyses to structural model parameters indicate that structures with high deformation capacities and rapid rates of cyclic deterioration are the most sensitive to duration.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamsonN. A. and SilvaW. J.1996. Empirical Ground Motion Models, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY.
2.
AnchetaT. D.DarraghR. B.StewartJ. P.SeyhanE.SilvaW. J.ChiouB. S. J.WooddellK. E.GravesR. W.KottkeA. R.BooreD. M.KishidaT. and DonahueJ. L.2013. PEER NGA-West2 Database, PEER 2013/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
3.
AriasA.1970. A measure of earthquake intensity, in Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants (HansenR. J., ed.) MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 438–483.
4.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2010. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-10, Reston, VA.
5.
BakerJ. W. and CornellC. A.2005. A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics34, 1193–1217.
6.
BakerJ. W. and CornellC. A.2006. Vector-Valued Ground Motion Intensity Measures for Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis, PEER 2006/08, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
7.
BakerJ. W.LinT.ShahiS. K. and JayaramN.2011. New Ground Motion Selection Procedures and Selected Motions for the PEER Transportation Research Program, PEER 2011/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
8.
BenjaminJ. R.1988. A Criterion for Determining Exceedance of the Operating Basis Earthquake, EPRI Report NP-5930, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
9.
BoltB. A.1973. Duration of strong ground motion, 5th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Italy, 1304–1313.
10.
BommerJ. J.MagenesG.HancockJ. and PenazzoP.2004. The influence of strong-motion duration on the seismic response of masonry structures, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering2, 1–26.
11.
BommerJ. J. and Martinez-PereiraA.1999. The effective duration of earthquake strong motion, Journal of Earthquake Engineering3, 127–172.
12.
BommerJ. J.StaffordP. J. and AlarcónJ. E.2009. Empirical equations for the prediction of the significant, bracketed, and uniform duration of earthquake ground motion, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America99, 3217–3233.
13.
BooreD. M.2005. On pads and filters: Processing strong-motion data, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America95, 745–750.
14.
BooreD. M. and BommerJ. J.2005. Processing of strong-motion accelerograms: Needs, options and consequences, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering25, 93–115.
15.
BradleyB. A.2010. A generalized conditional intensity measure approach and holistic ground-motion selection, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics39, 1321–1342.
16.
BradleyB. A.2011. Correlation of significant duration with amplitude and cumulative intensity measures and its use in ground motion selection, Journal of Earthquake Engineering15, 809–832.
17.
ChaiY. H. and FajfarP.2000. A procedure for estimating input energy spectra for seismic design, Journal of Earthquake Engineering4, 539–561.
18.
CornellC. A.1997. Does duration really matter?FHWA/NCEER Workshop on the National Representation of Seismic Ground Motion for New and Existing Highway Facilities, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Burlingame, CA, 125–133.
19.
CosenzaE. and ManfrediG.1997. The improvement of the seismic-resistant design for existing and new structures using damage criteria, in Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes (KrawinklerH. and FajfarP., eds.), Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 119–130.
20.
DeierleinG. G.ReinhornA. M. and WillfordM. R.2010. Nonlinear Structural Analysis for Seismic Design, NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 4, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
21.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009. Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, FEMA P695, Washington, D.C.
22.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2012. Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Volume 1 – Methodology, FEMA P-58-1, Washington, D.C.
23.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2014. Appendix A of Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Volume 5 – Use of Seismic Performance Assessment Methodologies to Evaluate Code Performance, FEMA P-58-5, Washington, D.C. (in press).
24.
FoschaarJ. C.BakerJ. W. and DeierleinG. G.2011. Preliminary assessment of ground motion duration effects on structural collapse, 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
25.
GuptaA. and KrawinklerH.2000. Dynamic P-delta effects for flexible inelastic steel structures, Journal of Structural Engineering126, 145–154.
26.
HancockJ. and BommerJ. J.2006. A state-of-knowledge review of the influence of strong-motion duration on structural damage, Earthquake Spectra22, 827–845.
27.
HancockJ. and BommerJ. J.2007. Using spectral matched records to explore the influence of strong-motion duration on inelastic structural response, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering27, 291–299.
28.
HaseltonC. B.BakerJ. W.LielA. B. and DeierleinG. G.2011. Accounting for ground-motion spectral shape characteristics in structural collapse assessment through an adjustment for epsilon, Journal of Structural Engineering137, 332–344.
29.
HaseltonC. B. and DeierleinG. G.2007. Assessing Seismic Collapse Safety of Modern Reinforced Concrete Moment Frame Buildings, PEER 2007/08, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
30.
HaseltonC. B.LielA. B.LangeS. T. and DeierleinG. G.2008. Beam-Column Element Model Calibrated for Predicting Flexural Response Leading to Global Collapse of RC Frame Buildings, PEER 2007/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
31.
IbarraL. F.MedinaR. A. and KrawinklerH.2005. Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics34, 1489–1511.
32.
IervolinoI.ManfrediG. and CosenzaE.2006. Ground motion duration effects on nonlinear seismic response, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics35, 21–38.
33.
JalayerF.2003. Direct Probabilistic Seismic Analysis: Implementing Non-Linear Dynamic Assessments, Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
34.
KayenR. E. and MitchellJ. K.1997. Assessment of liquefaction potential during earthquakes by Arias intensity, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering123, 1162–1174.
35.
KemptonJ. J. and StewartJ. P.2006. Prediction equations for significant duration of earthquake ground motions considering site and near-source effects, Earthquake Spectra22, 985–1013.
36.
KramerS. L. and MitchellR. A.2006. Ground motion intensity measures for liquefaction hazard evaluation, Earthquake Spectra22, 413–438.
37.
KrawinklerH.1997. Impact of duration/energy in design, FHWA/NCEER Workshop on the National Representation of Seismic Ground Motion for New and Existing Highway Facilities, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Burlingame, CA, 115–123.
38.
KunnathS. K. and ChaiY. H.2004. Cumulative damage-based inelastic cyclic demand spectrum, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics33, 499–520.
39.
KutnerM. H.NachtsheimC. and NeterJ.2004. Applied Linear Regression Models Fifth Edition, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York.
40.
LucoN. and CornellC. A.2007. Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions, Earthquake Spectra23, 357–392.
41.
MahinS. A.1980. Effects of duration and aftershocks on inelastic design earthquakes, 7th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, 677–680.
McKennaF.FenvesG. L. and ScottM. H.2006. OpenSees: Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, available at http://opensees.berkeley.edu.
44.
MoehleJ. and DeierleinG. G.2004. A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada.
45.
MontejoL. A. and KowalskyM. J.2008. Estimation of frequency-dependent strong motion duration via wavelets and its influence on nonlinear seismic response, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering23, 253–264.
46.
OuY.-C.SongJ.WangP.-H.AdidharmaL.ChangK.-C. and LeeG. C.2014. Ground motion duration effects on hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete bridge columns, Journal of Structural Engineering140, 04013065.
47.
Oyarzo-VeraC. and ChouwN.2008. Effect of earthquake duration and sequences of ground motions on structural responses, 10th International Symposium on Structural Engineering for Young Experts, Changsha, China.
48.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), 2010a. Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings, PEER 2010/05, Berkeley, CA.
RaghunandanM. and LielA. B2013. Effect of ground motion duration on earthquake-induced structural collapse, Structural Safety41, 119–133.
51.
RahnamaM. and ManuelL.1996. The effect of strong motion duration on seismic demands, 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico.
52.
SarieddineM. and LinL.2013. Investigation correlations between strong-motion duration and structural damage, in Structures Congress 2013, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2926–2936.
53.
SiderasS. S. and KramerS. L.2012. Potential implications of long duration ground motions on the response of liquefiable soil deposits, 9th International Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering/4th Asia Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan.
54.
SucuogluH. and NurtugA.1995. Earthquake ground motion characteristics and seismic energy dissipation, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics24, 1195–1213.
55.
TremblayR.1998. Development of design spectra for long-duration ground motions from Cascadia subduction earthquakes, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering25, 1078–1090.
56.
TrifunacM. D. and BradyA. G.1975. A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America65, 581–626.
XieL.-L. and ZhangX.1988. Engineering duration of strong motion and its effects on seismic damage, 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 307–312.
59.
ZahrahT. F. and HallW. J.1984. Earthquake energy absorption in SDOF structures, Journal of Structural Engineering110, 1757–1772.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
