See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275240654

Ground Motion Selection and Scaling in Practice

Article  in  Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering · January 2015

DOI: 10.3311/PPci.7808

CITATIONS READS

19 1,341

2 authors:

Leila Haj Najafi Mohsen Tehranizadeh

Amirkabir University of Technology Amirkabir University of Technology
18 PUBLICATIONS   53 CITATIONS    202 PUBLICATIONS   683 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Advancing methods to evaluate and improve the reliability index of collapse in seismic evaluation of masonry buildings using fragility functions View project

Collapse Risk Assessment of High-Rise RC Frame-Core Wall Structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Leila Haj Najafi on 07 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Ŕ Periodica Polytechnica Ground Motion Selection and Scaling
Civil Engineering
in Practice
Leila Haj Najafi, Mohsen Tehranizadeh
OnlineFirst (2015) paper 7808
DOI: 10.3311/PPci.7808
Creative Commons Attribution

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Received 11-11-2014, accepted 03-03-2015

Abstract 1 Introduction
This paper provides and evaluates a very simple and practical Seismic provisions in current building codes and standards
procedure for selecting ground motions in addition to compare include rules for design of structures using nonlinear response
two common scaling methods based on the uniform hazard spec- history analysis in some conditions. Due to the lack of recorded
trum (UHS) method and presents scale factors of the selected data for the design level earthquakes (which are usually rare
ground motions associated with these methods. Evaluation of events), it is critical to develop systematic methods and useful
the proposed approach of record selection demonstrates the ef- tools to select and modify from current ground motion databases
ficiency of the proposed method. It also presents proper method to provide a group of earthquake motions that can realistically
of scaling for each soil condition and engineering demand pa- represent important aspects of the design motion controlling the
rameter and the obtained scale factors could be utilized directly nonlinear response of civil engineering facilities [1]. The best
from this paper in the other studies in this field without any ex- method for selecting and scaling ground motions will depend
cessive calculational attempts. on the type of assessment being performed. ATC-58-1 identi-
fies three types of performance assessment: intensity, scenario,
Keywords and time-based. Intensity-based assessments are the most com-
Record Selection · Record Scaling · Uniform Hazard Spec- mon of the three types and compute the response of a building
trum · Efficiency · Soil Condition and its components for a specified intensity of ground shaking
(this approach is the focus of this paper). A scenario-based as-
sessment computes the response of a building to a user specified
earthquake event, which is typically defined by earthquake mag-
nitude and the distance between the earthquake source and the
building site. A risk-based (referred to as time-based assessment
in ATC-58-1) assessment provides information on response over
a period of time (e.g., annual rates). This is the most comprehen-
sive type of assessment and involves a number of intensity-based
assessments over the range of ground motion levels of interest
[2]. Despite the scenario-based assessment which computes the
response of a building based on a specific earthquake event, in-
tensity and time-based assessments have been conducted sub-
jecting to a group of records. Time-based assessment acquires
information of all occurred earthquakes which have been uti-
lized to adjust hazard curve of the assessed region; so, as much
as records could be provided, the confidence level will promote,
Leila Haj Najafi so many researchers attempts to enlarge records category to re-
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir University of duce record-by-record variations incorporated in this type of as-
Techology, Hafez Ave, Tehran, P.O.B. 15875-4413, Iran
sessment. However, intensity-based assessment deal with num-
e-mail: [email protected]
ber of records represented by intensity measures (IM), like peak
Mohsen Tehranizadeh
ground acceleration, spectral acceleration on fundamental pe-
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir University of
riod of the model or etc., which are scaled associated to the in-
Techology, Hafez Ave, Tehran, P.O.B. 15875-4413, Iran
e-mail: [email protected]
tensity assumed target spectrum. Therefore, although enlarge-

Ground Motion Selection and Scaling in Practice 1

ment in the number of incorporated records can reduce record- tors and the selected records could be directly utilized from this
by-record variations, the scaling factors associated to the other paper in the other studies in this field without any excessive cal-
records should be adjusted to the selected ground motions en- culational attempts.
tirely that will cause some growing trend in deviations of struc-
tural responses [3]. To reply this requirement, some methods of 2 Ground motion selection
ground motion selection have been recommended by researchers The selection and scaling of earthquake ground motions have
like random selection or selecting based on some spectral mag- a key role in seismic load definition that will be applied to a
nitudes which are going to be discussed further in this paper. On structure during structural analysis, and serves as the interface
the other hand, if ground motions scaling factors are adjusted between seismology and engineering [9]. Ground motions must
based on the large selected number of records, nonlinear time be either selected from previous recorded earthquake events or
history analysis of the model is going to be computationally too supplemented by physics-based simulations where there is a
expensive and time-consuming; as all the records incorporated lack of appropriate recordings, such as large magnitude earth-
in scaling procedure should be included in analysis too. Ad- quakes at short site-to-source distances [5].
ditionally, this intense computational expenses occurred in the For assessing the frequently used methods of selecting and
place of very little upturn in confidence level. Unfortunately, scaling, it is better to provide a brief explanation about the pa-
there is currently no consensus in the earthquake engineering rameter of ε. Magnitude and distance are familiar quantities to
community on how to appropriately select and scale earthquake any earthquake engineer, but understanding of the ε parameter
ground motions for code-based design and seismic performance may be less common. Epsilon is defined by engineering seis-
assessment of buildings using nonlinear response history analy- mologists studying ground motion as the number of standard
sis [4]. Despite the current practices of record selection accord- deviations by which an observed logarithmic spectral accelera-
ing to a specific magnitude-distance scenario and scaling to a tion differs from the mean logarithmic spectral acceleration of
common level, neither aspect of this process has received sig- a ground-motion prediction (attenuation) equation. Epsilon is
nificant research attention to ascertain the benefits or effects of computed by subtracting the mean predicted ln Sa(T 1 ) from the
these practices on the conclusions [5]. In addition to the notifica- record’s ln Sa(T 1 ), and dividing by the logarithmic standard de-
tion of the type of analysis, the analyst must have a clear under- viation (as estimated by the prediction equation). Epsilon is de-
standing of the goals of analyzing before choosing procedures to fined with respect to the unscaled record and will not change in
select and scale ground motions [4]. Nonlinear response-history value when the record is scaled [10].
analysis is performed for a number of reasons, including: (1) Researchers recommend four methods for selecting records
designing new buildings with non-conforming lateral force re- in primarily list as follow [9]:
sisting systems; (2) designing new buildings equipped with seis-
1 Select records at random from a record library, without at-
mic isolators or energy dissipation devices; (3) designing seis-
tempting to match any specific record properties. This will be
mic upgrades of existing buildings per ASCE/SEI 41-06; and (4)
abbreviated as the ‘AR Method,’ as it uses Arbitrary Records.
assessing performance of new or existing buildings per ATC-58-
The importance of capturing the variability in seismic analy-
1 [2]. Also, The appropriate method for selecting and scaling
sis is reflected in the recent ATC-58-1 guideline [6], which
ground motions will depend on the structural response parame-
recommended randomly gathering eleven ground motions
ter(s) of interest, whether record-by-record variability in struc-
from the chosen magnitude and distance bin and then scaling
tural response is to be predicted (in addition to mean response),
them to match the targeted spectrum value at the fundamental
and whether maximum responses or collapse responses are to
period of the structure. However, the randomness nature in
be predicted [4]. ATC-58-1, one of very common standards in
the selection procedure makes it difficult to represent the true
building performance evaluation, recommends two methods for
variability of ground motions [1].
record scaling. The first is the uniform hazard spectrum (UHS)
and the second is the conditional mean spectrum (CMS) which 2 Select records with magnitude and distance values represen-
encounters some limitations in application. Although many re- tative of the site hazard, without attempting to match the ε
searchers confirmed efficiency of CMS in comparison with the values. This will be abbreviated as the ‘MR-BR Method,’ as
UHS method, it could not be considered as a general method it uses M, R-Based Records.
[2, 6–8]. This study addresses the question of selecting and am- Besides the spectral shape, the ground-motion characteristics
plitude scaling of accelerograms for predicting nonlinear seis- important to the seismic response of the facility may also in-
mic response of structures that supports either design or per- clude the significant duration, number of strong shaking cy-
formance assessment. It provides a very simple and practical cles, near-field directivity effects and pulse sequencing etc. It
procedure for choosing ground motions in addition to compare is necessary to specify the ranges of parameters over which
two methods of scaling based on the UHS method, and presents searches are to be conducted and other limits and restrictions
scale factors for the selected ground motion in view of these on the searches [1].
two methods considering different types of soil. The scale fac-

2 Period. Polytech. Civil Eng. Leila Haj Najafi, Mohsen Tehranizadeh

3 Select records with ε values representative of the site hazard, of these methods can only be assessed using numerical simu-
without attempting to match the magnitude and distance val- lations [15]. Pointing out that the ground motions may exhibit
ues. This will be abbreviated as the ‘ε-BR Method,’ as it uses significant variability in frequency content and amplitude, small
ε-Based Records. dispersion (variability) of EDPs is desired as it provides an ac-
ceptable confidence level.
4 Select records with spectral shapes that match the target spec-
trum, usually defined by the method of conditional mean, but
2.1 Proposed approach of record selection (step-by step)
make no further attempt to directly match the target M, R or
Considering all the advantages of selecting ground motion
ε values. This will be abbreviated as the ‘CMS-ε Method,’ as
based on their spectral characteristics that have been discussed
it uses the Conditional Mean Spectrum, considering ε.
earlier, this selection procedure causes some bias in scaling pro-
Preliminary results from COSMOS 2007 workshop con- cedure and the gained scaling factors. This scaling bias is more
cluded that for a first-mode dominated structure, such as tall intense if intensity measure is dependent to spectral characteris-
buildings, time histories that closely match target spectrum con- tics of the building (For example spectral acceleration) [9]. In
ditioned on the period of the first mode of the structure can yield addition, this procedure of selection requires assuming a predic-
good estimate of the median response of EDPs (eg. Maximum tive model prior to conducting record selection; consequently
inter-story drift ratio) for that scenario [11]. scaling records by means of this method results in dependency
For distant sites (not near-field), the most important factor in of scaling factors to the model specifications as it is necessary
selecting ground motions for scaling to a target spectrum is spec- to know the response spectrum associated with ground motions
tral shape over the period range of interest (currently 0.2 T 1 to having the target ground motion intensity; Therefore, for a new
1.5 T 1 in ASCE/SEI 7-10, where T 1 is the first mode transla- model the amounts of scaling factors should be modified in a try-
tional period). Selecting pairs of motions whose spectral shapes and-error procedure. However, the well-known Uniform Hazard
are similar to the target spectrum minimizes the need for scaling Spectrum (UHS) is unappealing for this application, as it is an
and modification. In addition, selecting records based on their envelope of spectral values associated with multiple ground mo-
spectral shape and design spectral acceleration increases the ac- tions, rather than a description of a single ground motion. Prob-
curacy and efficiency of the procedure [12]. lems with treating the UHS as the spectrum of a single ground
For near-field sites, another significant factor in selecting motion have been also noted by some other researchers [16–18].
ground motions for scaling to a target spectrum is the possi- To overcome the mentioned problems noted above there is
ble presence of velocity pulses. Velocity pulses are present in two strategies; the first strategy is to modifying target spectrum
many near-fault ground motion recordings, especially in the for- which results in Conditional Mean Spectrum (CMS) that was
ward directivity region. A relationship is proposed for estimat- initially proposed with an emphasis on the mean spectrum and
ing the appropriate number of pulse motions in a suite of design less attention was paid to the variability in the spectrum and con-
motions in Appendix C of the report of NIST/GCR 11-917-15 siders variability is termed the “Scenario Spectrum” or “Con-
[13]. Disaggregation of the seismic hazard curve will identify ditional Spectrum” (CS). Another recent extension of the ap-
the combinations of earthquake magnitude, site-to-source dis- proach has been to consider conditional values of any ground
tance, and ε that dominate the hazard around the period of the motion properties (e.g., duration), rather than just response spec-
building; this can aid the selection of pulse periods and thus seed tral values [7, 8]. To address the mentioned problem with the
ground motions for later scaling. Uniform Hazard Spectrum, the Conditional Mean Spectrum in-
Regarding the number of ground motions, typical practice in stead conditions the spectrum calculation on spectral acceler-
structural design is to use seven motions according to ASCE05-7 ation at a single period, and then computes the mean (or dis-
and eleven ground motions according to ATC, but the appropri- tribution of) spectral acceleration values at all other periods.
ate number of motions is still a topic of needed research. Ac- This conditional calculation ensures that the resulting spectrum
cording to the ASCE/SEI-7 [14], if at least seven ground mo- is reasonably likely to occur, and that ground motions selected
tions are analyzed, the design values of engineering demand to match the spectrum have appropriate properties of naturally
parameters (EDPs) are taken as the average of the EDPs deter- occurring ground motions for the site of interest.
mined from the analyses. If fewer than seven ground motions are The second strategy is random selection of records that is uti-
analyzed, the design values of EDPs are taken as the maximum lized as the main approach for record selection up to now.
values of the EDPs. It is demonstrated that the ASCE/SEI-7 The procedure proposed in this paper employ random selec-
scaling procedure is conservative if less than seven ground mo- tion by consideration of minimizing deviations around the ge-
tions are employed. Current ground motion selection and mod- ometric mean of natural logarithmic spectral acceleration val-
ification (GMSM) efforts are mainly focused on predicting the ues to reduce the effect of record-by-record variations in struc-
median response of the engineering demand parameters (EDP) tural responses. The efficiency of this method is going to be
under a prescribed seismic demand. Since there are no experi- revealed by comparison of standard deviations of engineering
mental validation studies available up to date, the effectiveness demand parameters (EDP) subjected to the selected records by

Ground Motion Selection and Scaling in Practice 3

the proposed approach of this study and some arbitrary choose 2.1.2 Step 2: Choosing a representative record for each
of records. earthquake event
This is fine to mention, it could not be claimed that the group The primarily list consists of twelve different earthquake
of records selected by the proposed method of this paper is the events in different stations and since the frequency content and
most efficient one, but we could illustrate that employing this other seismological characteristics of each earthquake differ
technique for record selection could apparently reduce the devi- with the other ones, it is prefer to choose one ground motion for
ation of structural responses in comparison to one merely ran- each of the earthquake event; subsequently by this technique,
domly selected. twelve ground motions in two directions were acquired. The
procedure proposed in this paper for selecting appropriate sta-
2.1.1 Step 1: Determining primarily list of records tion for each group of earthquake events is choosing the station
For ground motion selection, a primarily list of records is re- with the least standard deviation in natural logarithmic of the
quired which the records are going to be selected from it. The spectral acceleration values as a represent for the group to mini-
number of records incorporated in the primarily list and their mize record-by-record variations. The selected records for each
characteristics depend on the purpose of assessment in addi- of the ground motion set are presented in Table 1. By this pro-
tion to the hazard analysis of the site and records characteris- posed technique, records would be selected for analyzing the
tics like the fault mechanism, its frequency, maximum amount structure which could conclude little deviation in EDP results as
of its acceleration, distance between the site and the faults and they have the least distance from the mean values of the spectral
some other seismological factors. Many researchers prefer to acceleration values point by point.
randomly set records in primarily list and some other recom-
mends choosing records as a list comprises records with all 2.1.3 Step 3: Selecting minimum number of records
groups of specification according to their hazard possibilities. As nonlinear dynamic analyzing is too time consuming, one
How to choose primarily list of records and any advantages and tries to decrease the number of records as it is possible. A suite
disadvantages of each method is beyond the focus of this study. of 11 pairs of ground motions is the minimum recommended by
In this paper, one of very frequently developed primarily list the ATC-58-1 as well as it is going to be served in this study.
of records has been utilized. The records of this list have been Such a suite will provide a 75% confidence that the predicted
carefully selected by Medina and Krawinkler from the Pacific median response from will be with ±20% of the true median
Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) center strong motion value of response given the spectrum (for an assumed dispersion
database and it has been employed in many previous researches of 0.5). Better estimates of the median response can be achieved
in PEER and SAC centers and could be used for many studies by using larger suites of motions [2]. Since we have twelve
in this field too. Recorded motions are derived from a bin of records in two directions, one of the records has been omitted
recorded motions from databases of PEER NGA database [19], from the secondary list. For this purpose, records’ natural loga-
COSMOS [20] or K-NET [21]. It is fine to mention that any rithmic standard deviations were calculated and the record with
arbitrary list of records could be substituted and the record se- the maximum amount of standard deviation has been omitted.
lection procedure proposed in this paper does not have any par- Table 2 demonstrates the amounts of logarithmic standard devi-
tiality to the list. ation for each of the selected twelve records; as it is illustrated
The proposed primarily list of records by Medina and in this table the record of Livermore station has the maximum
Krawinkler contains 79 earthquake ground motions recorded value of standard deviation and should be omitted from the list.
in various earthquakes in California. All ground motions were Also, if elastic spectral diagrams of the records were plotted
recorded on free-field sites that can be classified as site class D against the values of structural period, one could reach to the di-
according to NEHRP seismic provision [22]. Most of the design agrams of Fig. 1 that presents not locating Livermore record in
codes like ASCE05-7 and seismic performance provisions like the domain of 2.5% up to 97.5% of the record’s mean value in
ATC-58-1 allow using this class of soil when the specification most of the period domain. By all the above assessments record
of the soil has not been studied; so, this list could be used when of Livermore station has been chosen to be omitted from the se-
the site class has not been determined too. For the sites with lected list of records. Eleven records are available in this stage
the other types of soil, modifications in target spectrum should providing a somewhat different prediction of the response quan-
be done that have been also performed in this study and corre- tities used to assess building performance and were displayed
sponding scale factors gained according to the site specifications in Table 3. The intent is to obtain an unbiased estimate of the
were presented. The earthquake magnitude in the list ranges in structural response, given the target spectrum, with limited error.
magnitude from 5.8 to 6.9 with the closest distance to rupture
ranging from 13 km to 60 km. 3 Scaling ground motions
Current performance-based design and evaluation method-
ologies prefer intensity-based methods to scale ground motions
over spectral matching techniques that modify the frequency

4 Period. Polytech. Civil Eng. Leila Haj Najafi, Mohsen Tehranizadeh

 Tab. 1. Twelve selected records

Record
Number Event Year Station Mw R (km) Mech PGA (g)
ID
El Centro
Imperial Strike-
1 IV79e13 1979 Array 6.53 21.90 0.139
Valley slip
#13
San
Ramon - Strike-
2 LV80srm Livermore 1980 5.80 17.60 0.076
Eastman slip
Kodak
Morgan Gilroy Strike-
3 MH84g02 1984 6.20 15.10 0.162
Hill Array #2 slip
Port
Point Reverse-
4 PM73phn 1973 Huen- 5.80 25.00 0.112
Mugu slip
eme
Palm
N.Palm Strike-
5 PS86psa 1986 Springs 6.00 16.60 0.187
Spring slip
Airport
Whittier Carson -
6 WN87wat 1987 6.00 24.50 Reverse 0.104
Narrows Water St
LA - Hol-
San Fer- Reverse-
7 SF71pel 1971 lywood 6.60 21.20 0.174
nando slip
Store Lot
Superstition Plaster Strike-
8 SH87pls 1987 6.70 21.00 0.186
Hill City slip
Borrego El Centro Strike-
9 BM68elc 1968 6.70 46.00 0.057
Mountain Array #9 slip
Palo Alto
Loma Reverse-
10 LP89slc 1989 - SLAC 6.90 36.30 0.194
Prieta oblique
Lab
Lakewood
- Del Reverse-
11 NR94del Northridge 1994 6.70 59.30 0.137
Amo slip
Blvd
Parkfield
- Reverse-
12 CO83c05 Coalinga 1983 6.40 47.30 0.131
Cholame oblique
5W

content or phasing of the record to match its response spec- Including a vibration property of the structure led to improved
trum to the target spectrum. In contrast, intensity-based scaling methods to scale ground motions, e.g., scaling records to a tar-
methods preserve the original non-stationary content and only get value of the elastic spectral acceleration, from the code-
modify its amplitude. The primary objective of intensity-based based design spectrum or (Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Anal-
scaling methods is to provide scale factors for a small number of ysis) PSHA-based uniform hazard spectrum at the fundamental
ground motion records so that nonlinear response history analy- vibration period of the structure, T 1 , provides improved results
sis (RHA) of the structure for these scaled records has sufficient for structures whose response is dominated by their first-mode
reliability. It provides an accurate estimate in the median value [23]. However, this scaling procedure becomes less accurate
of the engineering demand parameters (EDPs), and minimizes and less efficient for structures responding significantly in their
the record-to-record variations in the EDP magnitudes. higher vibration modes or far into the inelastic range [29–31].
Scaling ground motions to match a target value of peak To consider higher mode response, a scalar IM that combines
ground acceleration (PGA) is the earliest approach to the prob- the spectral accelerations at the first two periods T 1 and T 2 and
lem, which produces inaccurate estimates with large dispersion vector IM comprised of T 1 and the ratio of T 1 / T 2 have been de-
in EDP values [23–26]. Other scalar intensity measures (IMs) veloped [32, 33]. Although this vector IM improves accuracy, it
such as: effective peak acceleration, Arias intensity and effec- remains inefficient for near-fault records with a dominant veloc-
tive peak velocity have also been found to be inaccurate and ity pulse [34].
inefficient [27]. Indeed, spectral shape is a record property that In addition to different scaling methodologies, International
directly affects the structural responses [28]. Building Code (IBC) [35] and California Building Code (CBC)

Ground Motion Selection and Scaling in Practice 5

 Tab. 2. Record’s natural logarithmic standard deviations
The ASCE/SEI-7 procedure is found to be conservative as
Earthquake σ (Ln(Sa(T))) compared to the benchmark responses from hazard compatible
Borrego Mountain 11.05 unscaled records using a larger catalog of ground motions. It is
Coalinga 12.38
neither efficient nor consistent if less than seven ground motions
Imperial Valley 9.51
are utilized, thus penalizing the analyst for employing less than
Livermore 25.96
seven ground motions for nonlinear RHAs [12].
Loma Prieta 19.57
Morgan Hill 8.64 The second method that is very frequently used by design-
N.Palm Spring 4.19 ers and also has been applied in ATC-58-1 example section is
Northridge 3.50 scaling the ground motion only in the fundamental period of the
Point Mugu 7.30 structure.
San Fernando 16.50 Early quantitative investigations into ground motion scaling
Superstition Hill 10.53
indicated that a suite of ground motions may be safely scaled
Whittier Narrows 9.89
to the suite’s median spectral acceleration value, at a period T ,
without biasing the median response of a structure having the
same first-mode period T [5, 29]. But recent work suggests that
[36] require earthquake scaling according to the ASCE05-7 pro-
in some other situations record scaling may induce some bias
visions [14].
in structural response [39, 40]. This bias appears to result from
Since there are no experimental validation studies available
the scaled ground motions having inappropriate values of spec-
up to date, the effectiveness of these methods can only be as-
tral shape or the parameter ε, which is an indirect measure of
sessed using numerical simulations. These simulations require
spectral shape [9, 41].
development of realistic computer models. In this respect, struc-
In this paper, the scale factors were provided for a short-rise
tural monitoring plays a key role in providing recorded motions
building with a fundamental period equal to one. After provid-
on existing structures which can be used to create their well-
ing scale factors in two methods, the evaluation and comparison
calibrated (in terms of modal periods, modal shapes, modal
of these two methods will be done and considering all the con-
damping etc.) computer models. The good agreement be-
ditions these scaling factors could be employed directly in other
tween the computed and recorded displacements indicates that
studies.
the computer model is adequate for assessing the ASCE05-7
ground motion scaling method [37].
3.1 Definition of Target Spectra for Scaling Ground Motions
This paper employs two common methods for scaling
Although 5%-damped spectral acceleration, S a , has several
recorded earthquakes according to different class of soils. The
limitations and is not directly related to the nonlinear response
outcomes could be directly used as the scaling ratio in related
of a building, it is broadly utilized in researches as well as this
researches.
study.
The first that has been recommended by the ATC-58-1
There are three primary types of horizontal spectral accelera-
and ASCE05-7 is also recommended by many provisions like
tion: (1) arbitrary component (S aarb );
IBC2006 and CBC2007 for use in nonlinear RHA of structures.
(2) Geometric mean (S ag.m .); and (3) maximum direction
For two-dimensional analysis of symmetric-plan buildings,
(S amaxDir ). These three definitions are discussed in the NIST
ASCE05-7 requires intensity-based scaling of ground motion
report more comprehensively [13]. Any of these definitions can
records using appropriate scale factors; so that the average value
be used, and the performance prediction will not depend on the
of the 5 percent-damped response spectra for the set of scaled
choice, but it is imperative that the procedure used to select and
records is not less than the design response spectrum over the
scale motions be consistent with the definition used for the target
period range from 0.2 T 1 to 1.5 T 1 . The design value of an engi-
spectrum [10].
neering demand parameter (EDP) is taken as the average value
There are two common methods for providing target spec-
of the EDP over seven (or more) ground motions, or its maxi-
trum, uniform hazard spectrum (UHS) and conditional mean
mum value over all ground motions, if the system is analyzed
spectrum (CMS). This paper utilized UHS method for the pur-
for fewer than seven ground motions [14]. The ASCE05-7 scal-
pose of target spectrum definition that is more common rather
ing procedure does not insure a unique scaling factor for each
than CMS method and has been applied in all design and perfor-
record; obviously, various combinations of scaling factors can
mance codes as the main method of achieving target spectrum.
be defined to insure that the average spectrum of scaled records
The Uniform Hazard Spectrum is based on a given hazard
remains above the design spectrum (or amplified spectrum in
level by enveloping the results of seismic hazard analysis (for
case of 3-D analyses) over the specified period range. Because
a given probability of exceedance) for each period. The prob-
it is desirable to scale each record through the smallest possi-
ability of observing all of those spectral amplitudes in any sin-
ble factor, an algorithm is developed and used in applying the
gle ground motion is unknown. Consequently, it will generally
code-scaling procedure which is available at [37, 38].
be a conservative target spectrum, especially for large and rare

6 Period. Polytech. Civil Eng. Leila Haj Najafi, Mohsen Tehranizadeh

 Tab. 3. Eleven selected records

Number Record ID Event Year Station Mw R (km) Mech PGA (g)

Imperial El Centro
1 IV79e13 1979 6.53 21.90 Strike-slip 0.139
Valley Array #13
Gilroy Array
2 MH84g02 Morgan Hill 1984 6.20 15.10 Strike-slip 0.162
#2
Port
3 PM73phn Point Mugu 1973 5.80 25.00 Reverse-slip 0.112
Hueneme
N.Palm Palm Springs
4 PS86psa 1986 6.00 16.60 Strike-slip 0.187
Spring Airport
Whittier Carson -
5 WN87wat 1987 6.00 24.50 Reverse 0.104
Narrows Water St
LA -
San
6 SF71pel 1971 Hollywood 6.60 21.20 Reverse-slip 0.174
Fernando
Store Lot
Superstition
7 SH87pls 1987 Plaster City 6.70 21.00 Strike-slip 0.186
Hill
Borrego El Centro
8 BM68elc 1968 6.70 46.00 Strike-slip 0.057
Mountain Array #9
Palo Alto - Reverse-
9 LP89slc Loma Prieta 1989 6.90 36.30 0.194
SLAC Lab oblique
Lakewood -
10 NR94del Northridge 1994 6.70 59.30 Reverse-slip 0.137
Del Amo Blvd
Parkfield - Reverse-
11 CO83c05 Coalinga 1983 6.40 47.30 0.131
Cholame 5W oblique

ground motion, unless the structure responds elastically in only classes of soil.
its first translational mode. This inherent conservatism comes The first method, recommended by the ATC-58-1 and
from the fact that the spectral values at each period are not likely ASCE05-7 in company with the many other provisions like
to all occur in a single ground motion. This limitation of the IBC2006 and CBC2007 for use in nonlinear RHA of struc-
Uniform Hazard Spectrum has been noted in many works e.g. tures, suggest to scale record so that the average value of the 5
in [16–18]. percent-damped response spectra for the record is not less than
the target design spectrum over the period range from 0.2 T 1 to
3.2 Definition of target spectrum for scaling ground motions 1.5 T 1 . This method is going to be called in this study "provision
by uniform hazard method method".
In this part of study, the target spectrum in two levels of The second method that is very frequently used by design-
maximum credible earthquake (MCE) and design earthquake ers and also has been applied in ATC-58-1 example section is
(DE) is going to be obtained according to ASCE05-7 proce- scaling the ground motion only in the fundamental period of
dure. These two levels respectively represent 2% and 10% prob- the structure which is going to be called in this study "design
ability of occurrence of earthquake by the assumed intensity method".
measure in 50 years. The amounts of longitude and latitude The obtained scale factors for different types of soil according
of the picked out stations and their spectral amounts for short to the two methods have been present in Tables 5 to 12. Also,
and long periods (S s , S l ) and their modification factors (Fa , Fv ) the scaled response spectrum of each record according to target
according to ASCE05-7 have been obtained and displayed in design spectrum has been exhibited for soil type D in Figs. 2 and
Table 4. Through calculating geomean between the maximum 3.
credible earthquake spectrums for each station, the target maxi-
mum spectrum will be achieved and also according to ASCE05- 4 Evaluation of the proposed method for record selec-
7, 10% Probability of occurrence target spectrum could be sim- tion
ply got through applying target maximum spectrum values by For evaluating the proposed method in record selection, struc-
the factor of 0.667. tural responses of a generic model under three sets of randomly
selected records in addition to the records selected due to the
3.3 Scaling ground motions proposed method were considered and presented in Table 13.
This paper employs two common methods for record scal- Then the records have been scaled based on the design method
ing based on the uniform hazard spectra (UHS) for a short-rise of scaling regarding a certain target spectrum for all of the four
building by the typical period equal to one located in diverse sets of records which has been mentioned previously in Fig. 2.

Ground Motion Selection and Scaling in Practice 7

 Tab. 4. Langitude and latitude of the selected stations and their spectrual Fv ) according to ASCE05-7
amounts for short and long periods (S s , S l ) and their modification factors (Fa ,

Ss g Sl g Fa Fv S as S al T S (s)
Earthquake Station Latitude Longitude
According to ASCE05-7
El Centro
Borrego
Array #9 - 32.795 -115.550 1.500 0.600 1 1.5 1.50 0.90 0.60
Mountain
1968
Park field-
Coalinga Cholame- 36.138 -120.363 1.500 0.557 1 1.5 1.50 0.84 0.56
1983
El Centro
Imperial
Array #13 32.709 -115.683 1.406 0.554 1 1.5 1.41 0.83 0.59
Valley
- 1979
San
Ramon -
Livermore Eastman 37.780 -121.980 1.998 0.751 1 1.5 2.00 1.13 0.56
Kodak-
1980
Palo Alto -
Loma
SLAC 37.419 -122.205 2.427 1.006 1 1.5 2.43 1.51 0.62
Prieta
Lab- 1989
Gilroy
Morgan
Array #2 36.980 -121.556 1.500 0.700 1 1.5 1.50 1.05 0.70
Hill
-1984
Palm
N.Palm Springs
33.925 -116.548 2.085 1.001 1 1.5 2.09 1.50 0.72
Spring Airport -
1986
Lakewood
- Del Amo
Northridge 34.229 -118.528 1.848 0.669 1 1.5 1.85 1.00 0.54
Blvd -
1994
Port
Point
Hueneme 34.110 -119.056 2.131 0.877 1 1.5 2.13 1.32 0.62
Mugu
- 1973
LA -
San Hollywood
34.058 -118.301 2.054 0.696 1 1.5 2.05 1.04 0.51
Fernando Store Lot -
1971
Plaster
Superstition
City - 32.793 -115.858 1.500 0.600 1 1.5 1.50 0.90 0.60
Hill
1987
Carson -
Whittier
Water St 34.033 -118.068 2.035 0.708 1 1.5 2.04 1.06 0.52
Narrows
-1987

8 Period. Polytech. Civil Eng. Leila Haj Najafi, Mohsen Tehranizadeh

 Tab. 5. Scale factors for soil type D according to the "Design Method" for a building by T = 1.0 (s)

Scale factor for 10% probability of Scale factor for 2% probability of

occurrence in 50 years (Design) occurrence in 50 years (Maximum Earthquake
level Credible Earthquake) level
4.66 6.98 Borrego Mountain
6.83 10.24 Coalinga
6.43 9.64 Imperial Valley
1.41 2.11 Loma Prieta
8.00 12.00 Morgan Hill
4.37 6.55 N.Palm Spring
5.91 8.86 Northridge
4.60 6.89 Point Mugu
3.59 5.38 San Fernando
5.02 7.53 Superstition Hill
5.03 7.55 Whittier Narrows

Tab. 6. Scale factors for soil type D according to the "Provision Method" for a building by T = 1.0 (s)

Scale factor for 10% probability of Scale factor for 2% probability of

occurrence in 50 years (Design) occurrence in 50 years (Maximum Earthquake
level Credible Earthquake) level
5.25 7.87 Borrego Mountain
4.26 6.40 Coalinga
5.91 8.87 Imperial Valley
2.00 3.00 Loma Prieta
6.45 9.68 Morgan Hill
4.89 7.34 N.Palm Spring
5.13 7.70 Northridge
5.52 8.28 Point Mugu
3.60 5.40 San Fernando
3.32 5.00 Superstition Hill
4.93 7.40 Whittier Narrows

Tab. 7. Scale factors for soil type C according to the "Design Method" for a building by T = 1.0 (s)

Scale factor for 10% probability of Scale factor for 2% probability of

occurrence in 50 years (Design) occurrence in 50 years (Maximum Earthquake
level Credible Earthquake) level
4.03 6.05 Borrego Mountain
5.92 8.88 Coalinga
5.57 8.36 Imperial Valley
1.22 1.83 Loma Prieta
6.93 10.40 Morgan Hill
3.78 5.68 N.Palm Spring
5.12 7.68 Northridge
3.98 5.97 Point Mugu
3.11 4.66 San Fernando
4.35 6.53 Superstition Hill
4.36 6.54 Whittier Narrows

Ground Motion Selection and Scaling in Practice 9

 Tab. 8. Scale factors for soil type C according to the "Provision Method" for a building by T = 1.0 (s)

Scale factor for 10% probability of Scale factor for 2% probability of

occurrence in 50 years (Design) occurrence in 50 years (Maximum Earthquake
level Credible Earthquake) level
4.77 7.15 Borrego Mountain
3.87 5.81 Coalinga
5.37 8.06 Imperial Valley
1.81 2.72 Loma Prieta
5.86 8.80 Morgan Hill
4.45 6.67 N.Palm Spring
4.66 7.00 Northridge
5.02 7.52 Point Mugu
3.27 4.90 San Fernando
3.02 4.53 Superstition Hill
4.48 6.71 Whittier Narrows

Tab. 9. Scale factors for soil type B according to the "Design Method" for a building by T = 1.0 (s)

Scale factor for 10% probability of Scale factor for 2% probability of

occurrence in 50 years (Design) occurrence in 50 years (Maximum Earthquake
level Credible Earthquake) level
3.10 4.66 Borrego Mountain
4.55 6.83 Coalinga
4.28 6.43 Imperial Valley
0.94 1.40 Loma Prieta
5.33 8.00 Morgan Hill
2.91 4.36 N.Palm Spring
3.94 5.91 Northridge
3.06 4.61 Point Mugu
2.39 3.59 San Fernando
3.35 5.02 Superstition Hill
3.35 5.03 Whittier Narrows

Tab. 10. Scale factors for soil type B according to the "Provision Method" for a building by T = 1.0 (s)

Scale factor for 10% probability of Scale factor for 2% probability of

occurrence in 50 years (Design) occurrence in 50 years (Maximum Earthquake
level Credible Earthquake) level
3.90 5.85 Borrego Mountain
3.17 4.75 Coalinga
4.40 6.60 Imperial Valley
1.48 2.22 Loma Prieta
4.80 7.19 Morgan Hill
3.63 5.45 N.Palm Spring
3.81 5.72 Northridge
4.10 6.16 Point Mugu
2.67 4.01 San Fernando
2.47 3.71 Superstition Hill
3.66 5.50 Whittier Narrows

10 Period. Polytech. Civil Eng. Leila Haj Najafi, Mohsen Tehranizadeh

 Tab. 11. Scale factors for soil type A according to the "Design Method" for a building by T = 1.0 (s)

Scale factor for 10% probability of Scale factor for 2% probability of

occurrence in 50 years (Design) occurrence in 50 years (Maximum Earthquake
level Credible Earthquake) level
2.48 3.72 Borrego Mountain
3.64 5.46 Coalinga
3.43 5.14 Imperial Valley
0.75 1.12 Loma Prieta
4.27 6.40 Morgan Hill
2.33 3.49 N.Palm Spring
3.15 4.72 Northridge
2.45 3.67 Point Mugu
1.91 2.87 San Fernando
2.68 4.02 Superstition Hill
2.68 4.02 Whittier Narrows

Tab. 12. Scale factors for soil type A according to the "Provision Method" for a building by T = 1.0 (s)

Scale factor for 10% probability of Scale factor for 2% probability of

occurrence in 50 years (Design) occurrence in 50 years (Maximum Earthquake
level Credible Earthquake) level
3.12 4.68 Borrego Mountain
2.54 3.80 Coalinga
3.52 5.28 Imperial Valley
1.19 1.78 Loma Prieta
3.84 5.76 Morgan Hill
2.91 4.37 N.Palm Spring
3.05 4.58 Northridge
3.28 4.92 Point Mugu
2.14 3.21 San Fernando
1.98 2.96 Superstition Hill
2.93 4.40 Whittier Narrows

Fig. 1. Elastic spectral diagrams for different records

Ground Motion Selection and Scaling in Practice 11

 Fig. 2. Scaled Spectrums associated with the target design spectrum for soil type D according to the "Designers’ Method" for a building by T = 1.0(s)

Fig. 3. Scaled Spectrums associated with the target design spectrum for soil type D according to the "Provisions’ Method" for a building by T = 1.0 (s)

12 Period. Polytech. Civil Eng. Leila Haj Najafi, Mohsen Tehranizadeh

 Tab. 13. Incorporated record IDs for three sets of random selection and proposed method of record selection

Number of sets Incorporated record IDs

NR94pic, MH84g02, WN87sse, WN87stc, NR94php,
1 (Random selection) WN87wat, NR94cen, SH87icc, IV9vct, LP89sjw,
NR94sse
NR94cen, NR94del, SH87wsm, LP89slc, BM68elc,
2 (Random selection) NR94del, NR94nya, WN87wat, LP89svl, WN87cas,
IV79e01
MH84g02, NR94glp, NR94sor, SH87wsm, MH84g03,
3 (Random selection) IV79wsm, PM73phn, WN87cat, LP89hch, NR94fle,
PS86ino
IV79e13, MH84g02, PM73phn, PS86psa, WN87wat,
4 (Proposed method) SF71pel, SH87pls, BM68elc, LP89slc, NR94del,
CO83c05

Tab. 14. Logarithmic standard deviation of the EDPs subjected to four sets of records

Number of
σ (Ln(IDR)) σ (Ln(PFA))
sets
Story 1 Story 2 Story 3 Story 1 Story 2 Story 3
1 (Random
4.97 5.76 6.93 4.97 4.98 4.46
selection)
2 (Random
4.65 5.93 6.50 4.13 4.53 4.23
selection)
3 (Random
4.86 5.38 5.96 4.48 4.57 4.19
selection)
4 (Proposed
3.18 3.80 4.17 2.10 2.39 2.92
method)

Fig. 4. Comparison of the scale factors according to the two assessed methods for different records and types of soil.

Fig. 5. Schematic presentation of the Logarithmic standard deviation of EDPs according to Design level scale factors in two methods

Ground Motion Selection and Scaling in Practice 13

 Tab. 15. Logarithmic standard deviation of EDPs according to Design level scale factors in two methods

Method Drift Acceleration

1st Story 2nd Story 3rd Story 1st Story 2nd Story 3rd Story
Design
3.20 3.80 4.17 2.12 2.40 2.98
Method
Provision
3.05 3.96 4.39 1.87 2.06 2.67
Method

The selected EDPs in structural response assessment are usu- efforts for performing the proposed modifications in record se-
ally inter-story drift ratios (IDR) and peak floor acceleration lection.
(PFA) as well as in this paper. In this research, the median and
standard deviation of the natural logarithm of EDP parameters 5 Evaluation and comparison of the scaling methods
were reported as statistical parameters and probability distribu- Comparison of the scale factor results according to the two as-
tion of EDPs were assumed lognormal with the median and stan- sessed methods for different records, archived by the means of
dard deviations gained from the outcomes of nonlinear dynamic proposed method for record selection, and types of soil are dis-
analyses. played in Fig. 4. It could be inferred that by reducing shear wave
velocity in the soil classes (going from class A (hard rock) to D
4.1 Description of structural systems used for evaluation (stiff soil)) the differences between two methods increased and
On account of the need for generality of the results, the struc- provision method becomes more conservative. For evaluation
tural frame models are not intended to represent a specific struc- of the methods from the aspect of efficiency, logarithmic stan-
ture. For this purpose, a very typical 3-story model were uti- dard deviation of engineering demand parameters (EDP) have
lized with one bay in long and one in width for each story that been assessed. The assumed EDPs are maximum acceleration
has been designed according to the ASCE05-7 as special steel and drift of each story that represent force control and displace-
moment frame (SMRF). The long of bays in both directions are ment control EDPs respectively and the amounts of scale factors
equal to 6 m and the height of each story is equivalent to 3 m. derived from Tables 5 and 6 for soil type D. Table 15 serves the
Loading and complete designing of the model were carried out logarithmic standard deviation of EDPs according to 10% prob-
according to Iran’s seismic code (2800), [42], much similar to ability of occurrence based on the two scaling methods. The
UBC97, [43], and Iran’s Steel Design Code, [44], much similar results of this table are plotted in Fig. 5.
to AISC2005, [45]. It could be realized that the provision method is the more effi-
Nonlinear response analyzing was accomplished by the help cient method of scaling for force control EDPs; though for dis-
of the open system for earthquake engineering simulation placement control EDPs, design method seems to be slightly
(Opensees) [46]. Plastification was modelled, using nonlinear more efficient for the upper stories. However, for assessing
material gained from parallel aggregation of some elastoplas- higher mode effects and mode participation results in the effi-
tic materials which their definition were performed according to ciency evaluation of scaling methods it is recommended to use
FEMA273 [47]. All the nonlinear dynamic analyses are con- models with more number of stories in the future researches.
ducted as Direct Integration Transient time history analyses us-
ing Direct Integration in Hilber, Hughes and Taylor’s method 6 Conclusions
by consideration of P-∆ effects and damping ratio for all modes • This research proposed a simple and practical method for se-
equal to 5%. lecting required records for nonlinear time history analysis of
a model based on the least standard deviation in natural log-
4.2 Engineering Demand Results (EDP) subjected to dif- arithmic acceleration spectral values. The superiority of the
ferent sets of records proposed method has been demonstrated by much less mag-
Following the procedure mentioned above for design method nitudes of standard deviations in engineering demand param-
of scaling, the scaling factors have been attained and by the eters in comparison with randomly sets of records.
means of them nonlinear analyses of the models were performed • This paper employs two common methods for scaling
and EDP parameters achieved. recorded earthquake data based on provisions requirements
Magnitudes of the logarithmic standard deviation of the EDPs and designers experiences according to diverse class of soils.
are presented in Table 14. As it could be seen utilizing the sim- The results could be directly used as the scaling factors in
ple modification in record random selection could significantly related researches.
reduce the amounts of EDPs’ standard deviations and could im-
prove the efficiency of the selected records in estimating struc- • Evaluation and comparison of the results deduce that by re-
tural responses taking in to account no-expensive computational duction in shear wave velocity in the soil classes (going from
class A (hard rock) to D (stiff soil)) the differences between

14 Period. Polytech. Civil Eng. Leila Haj Najafi, Mohsen Tehranizadeh

 two methods increased and provision method becomes more 15 Kalkan E, Mehmet C, Assessment of ASCE-7 Ground Motion Scaling
conservative. Method using Computer Model and Instrumented High-Rise Building, U.S.
Geological Survey, 2010.
• It recognized that the provision method (the method in which 16 Reiter L, Earthquake hazard analysis: Issues and insights, Columbia Uni-
record scaling has been accomplished so that the average versity Press; New York, USA, 1990.
value of the 5 percent-damped response spectra for the record 17 Naeim F, Lew M, On the use of design spectrum compatible time histories,
Earthquake Spectra, 11(1), (1995), 111–127.
is not less than the target design spectrum over the period
18 Bommer JJ, Scott SG, Sarma SK, Hazard-consistent earthquake scenar-
range from 0.2 T 1 to 1.5 T 1 ), is the more efficient method for
ios, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 19(1), (2000), 219–231.
record scaling in terms of force control EDPs; though for dis- 19 PEER Strong Ground Motion Database, 2009, http://peer.berkeley.
placement control EDPs, design method (the method based edu/peer_ground_motion_database.
on the scaling ground motion only in the fundamental period 20 COSMOS Ground Motions Databases, 2012, http://db.cosmos-eq.
of the structure) seems to be slightly more efficient for the org/scripts/default.plx.
21 Strong-motions Seismograph Networks, 2013, http://www.k-net.bosai.
upper stories.
go.jp.
22 NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, Soil-structure interaction for building
References structures NIST/GCR 11-917-14, NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture for the
1 Wang G, A Ground Motion Selection and Modification Method Preserving
National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2011.
Characteristics and Aleatory Variability of Scenario Earthquakes, In: Pro- 23 Nau J, Hall W, Scaling methods for earthquake response spectra, Journal of
ceedings of the 9th US National and 10th Canadian Conference on Earth- Structural Engineering ASCE, 110(2), (1984), 91–109.
quake Engineering 2010, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 2010, 24 Miranda E, Hall W, Evaluation of site-dependent inelastic seismic de-
pp. 4907–4917.
sign spectra, Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, 119(5), (1993), 1319–
2 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, ATC-58-1 75% Draft, Applied
1338.
Technology Council; Washington, DC, USA, 2011. 25 Vidic T, Fajfar P, Fischinger M, Consistent inelastic design spectra:
3 Kalkan E, Chopra AK, Practical guidelines to select and scale earth- Strength and displacement, Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural
quake records for nonlinear response history analysis of structures, U.S. Ge- Dynamics, 23(5), (1994), 507–521.
ological Survey, 2010, https://www.eeri.org/site/images/awards/ 26 Shome N, Cornell CA, Bazzurro P, Carballo JE, Earthquakes, records,
reports/ekalkan.pdf.
and nonlinear responses, Earthquake Spectra, 14(3), (1998), 469–500.
4 Haselton CB, Whittaker AS, Baker JW, Bray J, Gray DN, Selecting
27 Kurama Y, Farrow K, Ground motion scaling methods for different site con-
and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motion for Performing Response-History ditions and structure characteristics, Journal of Earthquake Engineering and
Analyses, In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference on Earthquake Engi- Structural Dynamics, 32(15), (2003), 2425–2450.
neering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 2012, pp. 4207–4217. 28 Golafshani AA, Ebrahimian H, Tabandeh SA, An Efficient Method of
5 Iervolino I, Cornell CA, Record selection for nonlinear seismic analysis of Earthquake Ground Motion Selection for Performing Reliable Nonlinear Dy-
structures, Earthquake Spectra, 21(3), (2005), 685–713.
namic Analysis, In: Proceedings of 5th National Congress on Civil Engineer-
6 Guidelines for Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, ATC-58-1
ing, 5th National Congress on Civil Engineering, 2010, pp. 63–72.
50% Draft, Applied Technology Council; Washington, DC, USA, 2008. 29 Shome N, Cornell AC, Tabandeh SA, Normalization and Scaling Ac-
7 Bradley BA, A generalized conditional intensity measure approach and celerograms for Nonlinear Structural Analysis, In: Improving the Seismic
holistic ground-motion selection, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dy- Performance of Existing Buildings and Other Structures, American Society
namic, 39(12), (2010), 1321–1342.
of Civil Engineers, 1998, pp. 890–898.
8 Baker JW, The conditional mean spectrum: a tool for ground motion selec-
30 Mehanny SSF, Modeling and assessment of seismic performance of com-
tion, Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(3), (2011), 322–331.
posite frames with reinforced concrete columns and steel beams, PhD thesis,
9 Baker JW, Measuring Bias in Structural Response Caused by Grand Mo- Stanford University; California, USA, 1999.
tion Scaling, In: 8th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering: Final 31 Alavi B, Krawinkler H, Consideration of Near-fault Ground Motion Effects
program and book of abstracts: 5th-7th December 2007, Technological Uni- in Seismic Design, In: Proceeding of the 12th World Conference on earth-
versity, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2007, pp. 82–91.
quake Engineering, New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineer-
10 Baker JW, Cornell CA, A vector-valued ground motion intensity mea-
ing, 2000, pp. 978–992.
sure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon, Earthquake Engineering 32 Bazzurro P, Probabilistic seismic demand analysis, PhD thesis, Stanford
Structural Dynamics, 34(10), (2005), 1193–1217. University; California, USA, 1998, http://www.stanford.edu/group/
11 Haselton CB, Evaluation of ground motion selection and modification meth- rms/Thesis/index.html..
ods: predicting median interstory drift response of buildings PEER report 33 Shoem N, Cornell CA, Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlin-
2009/01, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of Cal-
ear structures, reliability of marin structures program. Report No. RMS-
ifornia, Berkeley, 2009.
35, PhD thesis, Stanford University; California, USA, 1999, http://www.
12 Reye JC, Kalkan E, How many records should be used in ASCE/SEI- stanford.edu/group/rms/Thesis/index.html..
7 ground motion scaling procedure, U.S. Geological Survey, 2004, 34 Baker J W, Cornell CA, Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection,
http://nsmp.wr.usgs.gov/ekalkan/PDFs/Papers/J39_Reyes_ Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 35(9), (2003),
Kalkan.pdf/. 1077–1095.
13 NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, Selecting and Scaling Earthquake
35 International Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials
Ground Motions for Performing Response History Analysis NIST/GCR 11-
(ICBO); Whittier, CA, USA, 2006.
917-15, NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture for the National Institute of Stan- 36 California Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials
dards and Technology, 2011. (ICBO); Whittier, CA, USA, 2007.
14 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-10, 37 Kalkan E, Chopra AK, Practical Guidelines to Select and Scale Earthquake
American Society of Civil Engineers; Reston, Virginia, USA, 2010.

Ground Motion Selection and Scaling in Practice 15

 Records for Nonlinear Response History Analysis of Structures, U.S. Geolog-
ical Survey, 2010.
38 Kalkan E, Chopra AK, Modal-pushover-based ground motion scaling pro-
cedure, Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, 103(3), (2009), 365–371.
39 Luco N, Bazzurro P, Effects of Earthquake Record Scaling on Nonlinear
Structural Response. PEER Lifelines Program Report on PEER-LL Program
Task 1G00 Addendum (Sub-task 1 of 3), Pacific Earthquake Engineering Re-
search Center (PEER), 2005.
40 Baker JW, Cornell CA, Vector-valued ground motion intensity measures for
probabilistic seismic demand analysis. Report No. 150, PhD thesis, Stanford
University; California, USA, 2005, http://www.stanford.edu/group/
rms/Thesis/index.html..
41 Baker JW, Cornell CA, Correlation of response spectral values for multi-
component ground motions, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of Amer-
ica, 96(1), (2006), 215–227.
42 Iran’s Seismic Provisions for design of buildings (2800 Standard), Building
and House Research Center; Tehran, Iran, 2005.
43 Uniform Building Code (UBC), International Code Council; Whittier, CA,
USA, 1997.
44 Iran’s Provisions for Design and Construct of Structural Steel Buildings, The
Ministry of Housing & Urban Development; Tehran, Iran, 2005.
45 Manual of Steel Construction AISC, American Institute of Steel Construc-
tion; Whittier, CA, USA, 2005.
46 Open system for earthquake engineering simulation, 2009, http://
opensees.berkeley.edu/.
47 NEHRP Guideline for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Building Seismic
Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency; Washing-
ton, DC, USA, 1997.

16 Period. Polytech. Civil Eng. Leila Haj Najafi, Mohsen Tehranizadeh

View publication stats