1 / 4

Notes on the Intensity Measure Breakout Session - PEER Annual Meeting - Jan. 17, 2002

Notes on the Intensity Measure Breakout Session - PEER Annual Meeting - Jan. 17, 2002 · Testbeds will not provide definitive answers as to the best single IM for all future use.

cenrique
Download Presentation

Notes on the Intensity Measure Breakout Session - PEER Annual Meeting - Jan. 17, 2002

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Notes on the Intensity Measure Breakout Session - PEER Annual Meeting - Jan. 17, 2002 ·Testbeds will not provide definitive answers as to the best single IM for all future use. ·   The preferred way to compare IMs is to use “stripes”. (i.e., for each IM, scale records to the same IM level, do nonlinear runs, and compare their dispersions, with secondary recognition of possible difficulties with respect to “sufficiency”). The most efficient solution is to use the same runs on records scaled to the same first-mode Sa to test all IMs. However, it is not yet clear that such runs can be effectively used to study other IMs. ·   Another solution is to provide the same records in their original unscaled condition, and then apply the “cloud” method (i.e., a regression of response on IM) to estimate the dispersion. This is equally applicable to all IMs, but it will take one additional set of runs for all records. ·For each record, it should contain the list of IM values and the list of EPD outputs. Standard IM values (e.g., Sa, Ia) can probably be provided by an individual; other more exotic IM values should be provided by the proponent. ·The lists of preferred IMs and EDPs to be studied for each testbed need to be compiled. ·A standardized procedure for evaluating efficiency and sufficiency of IMs needs to be agreed to and documented for others to use.

  2. PEER IM-EDP Meeting of April 26, 2002 • Overall Objective: • Identify ground motion Intensity Measures that “best” correlate to meaningful Engineering Demand Parameters • develop a refined list of promising IMs • standardize the manner in which IMs will be evaluated • resolve some of the difficult issues identified at January's meeting.

  3. Summary of Discussion of April 26, 2002 Meeting: Participants discussed specific findings from their studies on the ability of various IMs to estimate important EDPs for their particular problems, which included from bridge response, nonlinear building response, liquefaction and seismically induced permanent slope displacements. Allin Cornell discussed procedures for studying alternative candidate IMs, and his current recommendations are located at www.peertestbeds.net/Crosscutting.htm Here, efficiency and sufficiency are discussed. Both the “stripes” method and the direct regression “cloud” method were found to be acceptable ways of moving forward. Efficiency was determined to be more tractable and more important than sufficiency. An IM with twice the dispersion requires 4x as many runs to obtain an equivalent sense of the true median response. Joel Conte’s work was especially helpful for understanding how a vector of IMs may be developed (see www.peertestbeds.net/Crosscutting.htm) Most found that the spectral acceleration at the fundamental period of the system being analyzed worked well and is the default IM for most problems. Some promising combinations of spectral acceleration and some vectors containing spectral acceleration for normal cases and PGV for near-fault cases were also identified. Several researchers noted the advantage of using a non-system specific IM for studies that involved many systems of various characteristics (several sites that might liquefy or experience permanent displacement and network studies of many systems). For problems involving the response of short period systems, Arias Intensity was found to be promising, and a new attenuation relationship for this ground motion parameter was distributed at the meeting.  

  4. Testbed Ground Motions Somerville and Collins (2002) Uniform Hazard Spectra developed for outcropping soft rock for 50% in 50 yrs, 10% in 50 yrs, and 2% in 50 yrs level. Using available recorded ground motion records that represent the controlling event’s M and R at each hazard level, 10 to 20 ground motions were selected. For Humbolt Bay Bridge, M = 7 to 8 and R = 5 to 20 km for Sa(T=1.23s) All motions provided unscaled and scaled so that each record has Sa at T=1.23s equal to that of uniform hazard spectra at each hazard level. For I-880 Bridge, M = 6.6 to 7 and R = 7 km for Sa(T=1s) All motions provided only unscaled until representative period is selected. User must transform FN and FP components into logitudinal and transverse components. Motion sets inherently contain some forward-directivity and fling motions.

More Related