A performance‐based seismic loading protocol: The generated sequential ground motion

• Published in: Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics 2023-06, Vol.52 (7), p.2196-2221
• Main Authors: Golestani, Maryam, Alam, M. Shahria, Calvi, Gian Michele
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Algorithms; Bridge piers; Bridges; damage index; Design; Design optimization; Drift; Dynamic structural analysis; Earthquake damage; Earthquake loads; finite element analysis; generated sequential ground motion; Ground motion; Limit states; Movement; Numerical analysis; performance‐based seismic design; Robustness (mathematics); Segments; Seismic activity; Seismic design; seismic hazard; Seismic response; Shake table tests; spectral matching; Structural response; Testing; Variation
• ISSN: 0098-8847; 1096-9845
• DOI: 10.1002/eqe.3879

A realistic performance‐based seismic loading protocol called generated sequential ground motion (GSGM) has been developed in this paper. GSGM is a ground motion fabricated from segments of real recorded ground motions that could enable the introduction of performance‐based seismic assessment and design to experimental testing in setups such as shaking table testing. It can also significantly reduce the number of nonlinear time history analyses required in performance‐based seismic design. The protocol optimizes the behavioral information output of an experimental test or numerical analysis by incorporating dynamic demands corresponding to design limit states with different probabilities of exceedance (i.e. 10%, 5%, and 2% in 50 years) in a single record. In addition, since the segments are matched to relevant target spectra, the number of ground motions required to estimate the mean response is reduced. This paper presents the algorithm developed to produce the GSGM. The capability of the GSGM to replicate the structural responses produced by code‐compliant suites, and a suite of 100 ground motions as a more robust estimation of the actual response is investigated. The results of the case study bridge pier show that the drift variation of the GSGMs compared to code‐compliant suites is within 10%. Compared to the estimate of the actual response, the drift variation of GSGMs and the code‐compliant suites is 20% and 15%, respectively, and the damage variation is 30% and 15%, respectively. Furthermore, considering other relevant intensity measures when producing GSGMs can reduce these variations. This study suggests that the GSGM can replicate structural responses of the current code procedures.