Utility of Stochastic Ground Motion Models in Conditional Spectrum-Based Selection Consistent with the Causal Earthquakes

References

• Abrahamson, N., and W. Silva. 2008. “Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA Ground-Motion Relations.” Earthquake Spectra 24 (1): 67–97. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2924360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ang, A. H. S., and W. H. Tang. 2007. Probability Concepts in Engineering: Emphasis on Applications in Civil and Environmental Engineering. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, J. W. 2011. “Conditional Mean Spectrum: Tool for Ground-Motion Selection.” Journal of Structural Engineering 137 (3): 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, J. W., and C. Lee. 2018. “An Improved Algorithm for Selecting Ground Motions to Match a Conditional Spectrum.” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 22 (4): 708–723. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1264334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boore, D. M. 2003. “Simulation of Ground Motion Using the Stochastic Method.” Pure and Applied Geophysics 160 (3): 635–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00012553.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boore, D. M., and G. M. Atkinson. 2008. “Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for the Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped PSA at Spectral Periods Between 0.01 s and 10.0 s.” Earthquake Spectra 24 (1): 99–138. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2830434.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bozorgnia, Y., and V. V. Bertero. 2004. Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bradley, B. A. 2010. “A Generalized Conditional Intensity Measure Approach and Holistic Ground-Motion Selection.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 39 (12): 1321–1342. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.995.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, K. W., and Y. Bozorgnia. 2008. “NGA Ground Motion Model for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% Damped Linear Elastic Response Spectra for Periods Ranging from 0.01 to 10s.” Earthquake Spectra 24 (1): 139–171. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2857546.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiou, B. S. J., and R. R. Youngs. 2008. “An NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra.” Earthquake Spectra 24 (1): 173–215. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2894832.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dabaghi, M., and A. Der Kiureghian. 2017. “Stochastic Model for Simulation of Near‐Fault Ground Motions.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 46 (6): 963–984. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2839.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubourg, V., B. Sudret, and J.-M. Bourinet. 2011. “Reliability-Based Design Optimization Using Kriging Surrogates and Subset Simulation.” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 44 (5): 673–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-011-0653-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fayaz, J., S. Azar, M. Dabaghi, and F. Zareian. 2021. “An Efficient Algorithm to Simulate Hazard-Targeted Site-Based Synthetic Ground Motions.” Earthquake Spectra 37 (2): 876–902. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020970968.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fayaz, J., and F. Zareian. 2021. “An Efficient Algorithm to Simulate Site‐Based Ground Motions That Match a Target Spectrum.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 50 (13): 3532–3549. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3521.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galasso, C., P. Zhong, F. Zareian, I. Iervolino, and R. W. Graves. 2013. “Validation of Ground‐Motion Simulations for Historical Events Using MdoF System.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 42 (9): 1395–1412. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gidaris, I., A. A. Taflanidis, and G. P. Mavroeidis. 2015. “Kriging Metamodeling in Seismic Risk Assessment Based on Stochastic Ground Motion Models: Seismic Risk Assessment Through Kriging Metamodeling.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 44 (14): 2377–2399. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2586.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goulet, C. A., C. B. Haselton, J. Mitrani-Reiser, J. L. Beck, G. G. Deierlein, K. A. Porter, and J. P. Stewart. 2007. “Evaluation of the Seismic Performance of a Code-Conforming Reinforced-Concrete Frame Building—from Seismic Hazard to Collapse Safety and Economic Losses.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 36 (13): 1973–1997. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.694.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graves, R. W., T. H. Jordan, S. Callaghan, E. Deelman, E. Field, G. Juve, C. Kesselman, et al. 2011. “CyberShake: A Physics-Based Seismic Hazard Model for Southern California.” Pure & Applied Geophysics 168 (3–4): 367–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-010-0161-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ha, S. J., and S. W. Han. 2016a. “An Efficient Method for Selecting and Scaling Ground Motions Matching Target Response Spectrum Mean and Variance.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 45 (8): 1381–1387. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2702.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ha, S. J., and S. W. Han. 2016b. “A Method for Selecting Ground Motions That Considers Target Response Spectrum Mean and Variance as Well as Correlation Structure.” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 20 (8): 1263–1277. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1138162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hancock, J., and J. J. Bommer. 2006. “A State-Of-Knowledge Review of the Influence of Strong-Motion Duration on Structural Damage.” Earthquake Spectra 22 (3): 827–845. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2220576.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iervolino, I., F. De Luca, and E. Cosenza. 2010. “Spectral Shape-Based Assessment of SDOF Nonlinear Response to Real, Adjusted and Artificial Accelerograms.” Engineering Structures 32 (9): 2776–2792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.04.047.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iervolino, I., G. Manfredi, and E. Cosenza. 2006. “Ground Motion Duration Effects on Nonlinear Seismic Response.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 35 (1): 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.529.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jayaram, N., T. Lin, and J. W. Baker. 2011. “A Computationally Efficient Ground-Motion Selection Algorithm for Matching a Target Response Spectrum Mean and Variance.” Earthquake Spectra 82 (2): 345–345.
   Google Scholar
• Kaklamanos, J., L. G. Baise, and D. M. Boore. 2011. “Estimating Unknown Input Parameters When Implementing the NGA Ground-Motion Prediction Equations in Engineering Practice.” Earthquake Spectra 27 (4): 1219–1235. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3650372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam, C. Q., and Notz, W. I. 2008. ”Sequential Adaptive Designs in Computer Experiments for Response Surface Model Fit.” Statistics and Applications 6:207–233.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, T., S. C. Harmsen, J. W. Baker, and N. Luco. 2013. “Conditional Spectrum Computation Incorporating Multiple Causal Earthquakes and Ground-Motion Prediction Models.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 103 (2A): 1103–1116. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120110293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lophaven, S. N., H. B. Nielsen, and J. Sondergaard. 2002. DACE - A MATLAB Kriging Toolbox, Version 2.0. Denmark: Technical University of Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Montgomery, D. C. 2012. Design and Analysis of Experiments. 8th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• A. WhittakerG. AtkinsonJ. W. BakerJ. BrayD. GrantR. HamburgerC. HaseltonNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 2011. Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing Response-History Analyses (NIST GCR 11-917-15). Gaithersburg, MD: NIST.
   Google Scholar
• Raghunandan, M., and A. B. Liel. 2013. “Effect of Ground Motion Duration on Earthquake-Induced Structural Collapse.” Structural Safety 41:119–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2012.12.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rezaeian, S., and A. Der Kiureghian. 2010. “Simulation of Synthetic Ground Motions for Specified Earthquake and Site Characteristics.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 39 (10): 1155–1180. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.997.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Somerville, P. G., S. Callaghan, P. Maechling, R. W. Graves, N. Collins, K. B. Olsen, W. Imperatori, et al. 2011. “The SCEC Broadband Ground Motion Simulation Platform.” Seismological Research Lettter 82 (2): 275.
   Google Scholar
• Spillatura, A., M. Kohrangi, P. Bazzurro, and D. Vamvatsikos. 2021. “Conditional Spectrum Record Selection Faithful to Causative Earthquake Parameter Distributions.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 50 (10): 2653–2671. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3465.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsioulou, A., A. A. Taflanidis, and C. Galasso. 2018a. “Hazard‐Compatible Modification of Stochastic Ground Motion Models.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 47 (8): 1774–1798. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3044.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsioulou, A., A. A. Taflanidis, and C. Galasso. 2018b. “Modification of Stochastic Ground Motion Models for Matching Target Intensity Measures.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 47 (1): 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2933.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vetter, C. R., A. A. Taflanidis, and G. P. Mavroeidis. 2016. “Tuning of Stochastic Ground Motion Models for Compatibility with Ground Motion Prediction Equations.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 45 (6): 893–912. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2690.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar