Ground motions are selected and scaled to enable response-history analysis that

supports either design or performance assessment. The analyst must have a clear
understanding of the goals of analysis before choosing procedures to select and
scale ground motions.

Unlike nonlinear static analysis, nonlinear response-history analysis offers a more

accurate representation of the temporal response of the structure to the input
ground motions. In order to obtain meaningful results, it is important that the input
grounds motions reflect as accurately as possible the characteristics of the seismic
hazard at the site. This section summarizes how to characterize earthquake
ground motions when the goal is prediction of mean structural response for a
specified level of ground motion demand. Selection and scaling of ground motions
is a broad topic and this section does not cover all possible aspects related to
ground motions. The following decisions have to be made to characterize ground
motions:

For example, in order to predict average (or mean) story drift responses in a
building for a given intensity of shaking (e.g., ground motion with a 2% probability
of exceedance in 50 years), matching ground motions to a target spectrum may be
an appropriate approach because spectrum matching reduces the variability
(jaggedness) observed in acceleration spectra for individual ground motions and
leads to higher confidence in the predictions of average responses for a given
number of ground motion inputs. However, if the goal is to assess the probability of
shear failure in a force-controlled shear wall, which requires prediction of both the
mean value of demand and its variability, spectrum matching would be
inappropriate because it suppresses the record-to-record variability inherent in
recorded ground motions. This chapter discusses alternate purposes for response-
history analysis, summarizes three types of assessment that use response-history
analysis, and discusses how different response parameters and considerations of
variability can affect how ground motions are selected and scaled.
Response history analysis (whether linear or nonlinear) consists of the step-wise
application of time-varying ground accelerations to a mathematical model of the
subject structure. The selection and scaling of appropriate horizontal ground
motion acceleration time histories is essential to produce meaningful results. For
three-dimensional structural analysis two-component records are used. The
sections that follow discuss the approach to selection and scaling of ground motion
records as prescribed in the Provisions (and ASCE 7), illustrate the selection and
scaling of two-component ground motions.

There are three different places where response history analysis is permitted in the
Provisions. The first is the linear response history analysis procedure in Chapter
12. The second is the nonlinear response history analysis procedure in Chapter 16.
The last is in the design of structure with seismic isolation systems or supplemental
energy dissipation in Chapter 17 and 18 respectively.
Where linear response history analysis of the Standard is used, it is necessary to
select and modify a suite of ground motions to use as input in the form of ground
acceleration histories. There are different requirements for the selection and
scaling of ground motion acceleration history records in each of those sections.
Each analysis procedure has a different number of ground motion acceleration
records required and requirements to scale records to the target spectrum. For
each earthquake event two orthogonal components must be provided, and prior to
analysis, each component must be modified to represent the actual seismic hazard
at the site.

There are generally two approaches to ground motion modification: amplitude

scaling and spectral matching. In both cases the objective is to “fit” the
pseudoacceleration spectrum computed from the modified record to some target
design spectrum. In amplitude scaling, each acceleration value in the record is
multiplied by the same scale factor such that the ordinates of the scaled
pseudoacceleration spectrum and the target spectrum coincide at some pre-
selected period of vibration, or such that the average of the scaled components
from the suite of earthquakes closely matches (within some tolerance) the target
spectrum. One of the advantages of amplitude scaling is that the frequency
characteristics of the original record are preserved.

In spectral matching, the original ground motion record is nonuniformly scaled

(essentially different scale factors are used for each recorded value of the original
record) such that the pseudoacceleration response spectrum of the matched
record closely matches the shape of the target spectrum. There are a variety of
approaches to achieve this goal, and procedures utilizing Fourier transforms or
wavelets are the most common. The main advantage of using spectrally matched
ground motions is that a desired median response among multiple earthquakes
can be obtained with fewer records than required when amplitude scaling is used.
There is some concern, however, with spectral matching that the unique
characteristics of each ground motion record is lost. That is why there is a penalty
applied to its use in the nonlinear response history analysis procedure.

It is beyond the scope of this example to delve into the theoretical basis of ground
motion selection and modification, and for this reason the reader is referred to
NIST (2011) for additional details.
ASCE 7-16
C16.2.1 Target Response Spectrum. The target response spectrum used for
nonlinear dynamic analysis is the maximum direction MCER spectrum determined
in accordance with Chapter 11 or Chapter 21. Typical spectra determined in
accordance with those procedures are derived from uniform hazard spectra
(UHSs) and modified to provide a uniform risk spectrum (URS), or alternatively, a
deterministic MCE spectrum. UHSs have been used as the target spectra in design
practice since the 1980s. The UHS is created for a given hazard level by
enveloping the results of seismic hazard analysis for each period (for a given
probability of exceedance). Accordingly, it is generally a conservative target
spectrum if used for ground motion selection and scaling, especially for large and
rare ground motions, unless the structure exhibits only elastic first-mode response.
This inherent conservatism comes from the fact that the spectral values at each
period are not likely to all occur in a single ground motion. This limitation of the
UHS has been noted for many years (e.g., Bommer et al. 2000; Naeim and Lew
1995; Reiter 1990). The same conservatism exists for the URS and deterministic
MCE spectra that serves as the basis for Method 1.

Method 2 uses the conditional mean spectrum (CMS), an alternative to the URS
that can be used as a target for ground motion selection in nonlinear response
history analysis (e.g., Baker and Cornell 2006; Baker 2011; Al Atik and
Abrahamson 2010).

To address the conservatism inherent in analyses using URSs as a target for

ground motion selection and scaling, the CMS instead conditions the spectrum
calculation on a spectral acceleration at a single period and then computes the
mean (or distribution of) spectral acceleration values at other periods. This
conditional calculation ensures that the resulting spectrum is reasonably likely to
occur and that ground motions selected to match the spectrum have an
appropriate spectral shape consistent with naturally occurring ground motions at
the site of interest. The calculation is no more difficult than the calculation of a URS
and is arguably more appropriate for use as a ground motion selection target in risk
assessment applications. The spectrum calculation requires disaggregation
information, making it a sitespecific calculation that cannot be generalized to other
sites. It is also period-specific, in that the conditional response spectrum is
conditioned on a spectral acceleration value at a specified period. The shape of the
conditional spectrum also changes as the spectral amplitude changes (even when
the site and period are fixed). Fig. C16.2-1 provides examples of CMSs for an
example site in Palo Alto, California, anchored at four different candidate periods.
The UHS for this example site is also provided for comparison.

As previously discussed, the URS is a conservative target spectrum for ground

motion selection, and the use of CMS target spectra is more appropriate for
representing anticipated MCER ground motions at a specified period. A basic
CMS-type approach was used in the analytical procedures of the FEMA P-695
(FEMA 2009b) project, the results of which provided the initial basis for
establishing the 10% probability of collapse goal shown in Table 1.3-2. Therefore,
the use of CMS target spectra in the…

The recommended procedure includes the following steps for creating the site-
specific scenario response spectra.

1. Select those periods that correspond to periods of vibration that significantly

contribute to the building’s inelastic dynamic response. This selection includes a
period near the fundamental period of the building, or perhaps a slightly extended
period to account for inelastic period lengthening (e.g., 1.5T1). In buildings where
the fundamental response periods in each of two orthogonal axes is significantly
different, a conditioning period associated with each direction is needed. It also
likely requires periods near the translational second-mode periods. When selecting
these significant periods of response, the elastic periods of response should be
considered (according to the level of mass participation for each of these periods),
and the amount of first-mode period elongation caused by inelastic response
effects should also be considered.

2. For each period selected above, create a scenario spectrum that matches or
exceeds the MCER value at that period. When developing the scenario spectrum,
(a) perform sites-pecific disaggregation to identify earthquake events likely to result
in MCER ground shaking, and then (b) develop the scenario spectrum to capture
one or more spectral shapes for dominant magnitude and distance combinations
revealed by the disaggregation.

3. Enforce that the envelope of the scenario spectra not be less than 75% of the
MCER spectrum (from Method I) for any period within the period range of interest
(as defined in Section 16.2.3.1).

After the target spectra are created, each target response spectrum is then used in
the remainder of the response history analyses process and the building must be
shown to meet the acceptance criteria for each of the scenarios.

The primary purpose of the 75% floor value is to provide a basis for determining
how many target spectra are needed for analysis. For small period ranges, fewer
targets are needed, and more target spectra are needed for buildings where a
wider range of periods are important to the structural response (e.g., taller
buildings). When creating the target spectra, some spectral values can also be
artificially increased to meet the requirements of this 75% floor. A secondary
reason for the 75% floor is to enforce a reasonable lower bound. The specific 75%
threshold value was determined using several examples; the intention is that this
75% floor requirement will be fulfilled through the use of two target spectra in most
cases. From the perspective of collapse risk, the requirement of being within 75%
of the MCER at all periods may introduce some conservatism, but the requirement
adds robustness to the procedure by ensuring that the structure is subjected to
ground motions with near-MCER-level intensities at all potentially relevant periods.
Additionally, this requirement ensures that demands unrelated to collapse safety,
such as higher mode-sensitive force demands, can be reasonably determined from
the procedure.

SELECTION
16.2.2 Ground Motion Selection. A suite of not less than 11 ground motions shall
be selected for each target spectrum. Ground motions shall consist of pairs of
orthogonal horizontal ground motion components and, where vertical earthquake
effects are considered, a vertical ground motion component. Ground motions shall
be selected from events within the same general tectonic regime and having
generally consistent magnitudes and fault distances as those controlling the target
spectrum and shall have similar spectral shape to the target spectrum. For near-
fault sites, as defined in Section 11.4.1, and other sites where MCER shaking can
exhibit directionality and impulsive characteristics, the proportion of ground motions
with near-fault and rupture directivity effects shall represent the probability that
MCER shaking will exhibit these effects. Where the required number of recorded
ground motions is not available, it shall be permitted to supplement the available
records with simulated ground motions. Ground motion simulations shall be
consistent with the magnitudes, source characteristics, fault distances, and site
conditions controlling the target spectrum.

C16.2.2 Ground Motion Selection. Before this edition of ASCE 7, Chapter 16

required a minimum of three ground motions for nonlinear response history
analysis. If three ground motions were used, the procedures required evaluation of
structural adequacy using the maximum results obtained from any of the ground
motions. If seven or more motions were used, mean results could be used for
evaluation. Neither three nor seven motions are sufficient to accurately
characterize either mean response or the record-to-record variability in response.
In the 2016 edition of the standard, the minimum number of motions was increased
to 11. The requirement for this larger number of motions was not based on detailed
statistical analyses, but rather was judgmentally selected to balance the competing
objectives of more reliable estimates of mean structural responses (through use of
more motions) against computational effort (reduced by using fewer motions). An
advantage of using this larger number of motions is that if unacceptable response
is found for more than one of the 11 motions, this does indicate a significant
probability that the structure will fail to meet the 10% target collapse reliability for
Risk Category I and II structures of Section 1.3.1.3. This advantage is considered
in the development of acceptance criteria discussed in Section C16.4. All real
ground motions include three orthogonal components. For most structures, it is
only necessary to consider response to horizontal components of ground shaking.
However, consideration of vertical components is necessary for structures defined
as sensitive to vertical earthquake effects. Section 11.4.1 defines near-fault sites
as sites located within 9.3 mi (15 km) of the surface projection of faults capable of
producing earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater and within 6.2 mi (10 km) of the
surface projection of faults capable of producing earthquakes of magnitude 6.0 or
greater, where the faults must meet minimum annual slip rate criteria. Such
nearfault sites have a reasonable probability of experiencing ground motions
strongly influenced by rupture directivity effects. These effects can include pulse-
type ground motions (e.g., Shahi et al. 2011) observable in velocity histories and
polarization of ground motions such that the maximum direction of response tends
to be in the direction normal to the fault strike. The issue of pulse-type ground
motions affects the manner by which individual ground motions are selected for the
site and applied to the structure.

Selection of Ground Motions for Sites That Are Not Near-Fault. The traditional
approach has been to select (and/or simulate) ground motions that have
magnitudes, fault distances, source mechanisms, and site soil conditions that are
roughly similar to those likely to cause the ground motion intensity level of interest
(e.g., Stewart et al. 2002) and not to consider the spectral shape in the ground
motion selection. In many cases, the response spectrum is the property of a
ground motion most correlated with the structural response (Bozorgnia et al. 2009)
and should be considered when selecting ground motions. When spectral shape is
considered in the ground motion selection, the allowable range of magnitudes,
distances, and site conditions can be relaxed so that a sufficient number of ground
motions with appropriate spectral shapes are available. The selection of recorded
motions typically occurs in two steps, as explained in the following illustration. Step
1 involves preselecting the ground motion records in the database (e.g., Anchenta
et al. 2015) that have reasonable source mechanisms, magnitude, site soil
conditions, range of usable frequencie and site-to-source distance. In completing
this preselection, it is permissible to use relatively liberal ranges because Step 2
can involve selecting motions that provide good matches to a target spectrum of
interest (and matching to a target spectrum tends to implicitly account for many of
the above issues). Step 2 in the selection process is to select the final set of
motions from those preselected in Step 1. In the first step, the following criteria
should be used to filter out ground motions that should not be considered as
candidates in the final selection process:

Step 1 Criteria for initial screening of ground motions are as follows:

 Tectonic Regime: Select recordings from the same tectonic regime as
present at the site (typical choices are active crustal regions, stable
continental regions, and subduction zones; details in Stewart et al. 2014). In
this example, the seismic sources are shallow crustal events from strike-slip
faults. In the selection, we constrain to shallow crustal events but do not
constrain to only strike-slip.
 Magnitude and Distance: These parameters are obtained from
disaggregation of the hazard at a period of interest and were shown
previously in Section 3.4.2.1.1. We selected ground motions having
reasonably similar magnitude and distance in order to provide generally
compatible durations and spectral contents. Since spectral shape criteria
are separately enforced in Step 2, the duration compatibility is the principal
consideration. Duration is more related to magnitude than distance, so
distance criteria were not made to be strict.
  Site Soil Conditions: Site soil conditions (Site Class) exert a large influence
on ground motions, but are already reflected in the spectral shape used in
Step 2. For Step 1, reasonable limits on site soil conditions are imposed but
are not made to be overly restrictive as to unnecessarily limit the number of
candidate motions.
 Useable Frequency of the Ground Motion: Only processed ground motion
records should be considered for RHA. Processed motions have a usable
frequency range and the most critical parameter is the lowest usable
frequency. In the selection, the useable frequencies of the record (after
filtering) are checked, to ensure that the useable period range
accommodate the range of frequencies important to the building response.
 Pulse Characteristics (for near-fault sites): For near-fault sites, selection of
pulse motions is an important consideration. Assuming the target ground
motions come from a large Northern San Andreas rupture, we assume that
there is 150 km of rupture between the epicenter and the closest point on
the rupture to the site, the site is 14 km from the closest point to the rupture,
and ‘theta’ angle associated with this geometry is then 5 degrees, the
prediction equation of Shahi and Baker (2014, equation 23) gives a 67%
probability of the ground motion containing a directivity pulse.

Step 2 Criteria for final selection of ground motions are as follows:

 Spectral Shape: The shape of the response spectrum should be the primary
consideration when selecting ground motions.
 Scale Factor: A scale factor limit of approximately 0.25 to 4.0 is not
uncommon.
 Maximum Motions from a Single Event: Although less important than
spectral shape and scale factor, it is common to limit the number of motions
from a single seismic event to three or four motions when possible.
C16.2.3.1 Period Range for Scaling or Matching. The period range for scaling of
ground motions is selected such that the ground motions accurately represent the
MCER hazard at the structure’s fundamental response periods, periods somewhat
longer than this to account for period lengthening effects associated with nonlinear
response and shorter periods associated with a higher mode response. Before the
2016 edition of the standard, ground motions were required to be scaled between
periods of 0.2T and 1.5T. The lower bound was selected to capture higher mode
response, and the upper bound, period elongation effects. In the 2016 edition,
nonlinear response history analyses are performed at the MCER ground motion
level. Greater inelastic response is anticipated at this level as compared to the
design spectrum, so the upper bound period has accordingly been raised from
1.5T to 2.0T, where T is redefined as the maximum fundamental period of the
building (i.e., the maximum of the fundamental periods in both translational
directions and the fundamental torsional period). This increase in the upper bound
period is also based on recent research, which has shown that the 1.5T limit is too
low for assessing ductile frame buildings subjected to MCER motions (Haselton
and Baker 2006). For the lower bound period, the 0.2T requirement is now
supplemented with an additional requirement that the lower bound also should
capture the periods needed for 90% mass participation in both directions of the
building. This change is made to ensure that when used for tall buildings and other
long-period structures, the ground motions are appropriate to capture response in
higher modes that have significant response.

16.2.3.1 Period Range for Scaling or Matching. A period range shall be

determined, corresponding to the vibration periods that significantly contribute to
the building’s lateral dynamic response. This period range shall have an upper
bound greater than or equal to twice the largest first-mode period in the principal
horizontal directions of response, unless a lower value, not less than 1.5 times the
largest first-mode period, is justified by dynamic analysis under MCER ground
motions. The lower bound period shall be established such that the period range
includes at least the number of elastic modes necessary to achieve 90% mass
participation in each principal horizontal direction. The lower bound period shall not
exceed 20% of the smallest first-mode period for the two principal horizontal
directions of response. Where vertical response is considered in the analysis, the
lower bound period used for modification of vertical components of ground motion
need not be taken as less than the larger of 0.1 seconds, or the lowest period at
which significant vertical mass participation occurs.

C16.2.3.2 Amplitude Scaling. This procedure is similar to those found in earlier

editions of the standard, but with the following changes:

1. Scaling is based directly on the maximum direction spectrum, rather than the
square root of the sum of the squares spectrum. This change was made for
consistency with the MCER ground motion now being explicitly defined as a
maximum direction motion.

2. The approach of enforcing that the average spectrum “does not fall below” the
target spectrum is replaced with requirements that (a) the average spectrum
“matches the target spectrum” and (b) the average spectrum does not fall below
90% of the target spectrum for any period within the period range of interest. This
change was made to remove the conservatism associated with the average
spectrum being required to exceed the target spectrum at every period within the
period range.

The scaling procedure requires that a maximum direction response spectrum be

constructed for each ground motion. For some ground motion databases, this
response spectrum definition is already precomputed and publicly available (e.g.,
for the Ancheta 2012). The procedure basically entails computing the maximum
acceleration response to each ground motion pair for a series of simple structures
that have a single mass. This procedure is repeated for structures of different
periods, allowing construction of the spectrum. A number of software tools can
automatically compute this spectrum for a given time–history pair.
NIST
The most widely used intensity measure is 5%-damped spectral acceleration, Sa,
and this report focuses on it, although it has many limitations and cannot
characterize the nonlinear response of a building. Other ground motion properties
will tangibly affect structural response, including spectral shape, strong motion
duration (important for deteriorating systems and collapse calculations), and
presence of velocity pulses.

CMS
The CMS conditions the entire spectrum on spectral acceleration at a single
userspecified period and then computes the mean values of spectral acceleration
at all other periods. This conditional calculation ensures that ground motions
modified to match the spectrum have properties of recorded ground motions. The
CMS calculation requires hazard disaggregation information, making it site-
specific. The appropriate conditioning period may not be immediately obvious and
the CMS changes with conditioning period, unlike the UHS. Further, the spectrum
changes shape as the peak spectral value is changed, even when the site and
period are not changed. Multiple conditioning periods could be used to generate a
family of CMS for either design or performance assessment (Somerville and Thio,
2011).
Baker and Cornell (2006) provide the equations required to generate a CMS and
these are not repeated here. Figure 5-3 provides example Conditional Mean
Spectra anchored at a period of 2.6 seconds (the fundamental period of the 20-

story example building) and three other periods (T2 = 0.45s, T3 = 0.85s, and 2

T1 = 5s). The associated UHS is also shown. For each CMS, the spectral ordinate
at conditioning period is equal to that of the UHS, but all other ordinates are less,
period by period, than those of the UHS.
Ground Motion Intensity Measures

There are many ground motion intensity measures and this section identifies only a
few. The simplest measures, such as peak ground acceleration, peak ground
velocity, and peak ground displacement, provide little information on the damage
potential of an earthquake ground motion for a specific building. Relatively simple
but improved measures are based on the response of an elastic single-degree-of-
freedom system, including spectral acceleration, velocity, and displacement. More
complex (and rarely-used) measures include inelastic response of a single-degree-
of-freedom system and vector-based (multiple) intensity measures (e.g., elastic
spectral accelerations at two periods, inelastic spectral displacement at the first-
mode period, and elastic spectral displacement at the second-mode period). The
most widely used intensity measure is 5%-damped spectral acceleration, Sa, and
this report focuses on it, although it has many limitations and cannot characterize
the nonlinear response of a building. Other ground motion properties will tangibly
affect structural response, including spectral shape, strong motion duration
(important for deteriorating systems and collapse calculations), and presence of
velocity pulses. Three definitions of horizontal spectral acceleration are identified
here: one for analysis of two-dimensional (planar) frames, and two for analysis of
threedimensional frames: (1) arbitrary component; (2) geometric mean; and (3)
maximum direction. The procedures used to select and scale motions must be
consistent with whichever definition is chosen (Baker and Cornell, 2006b). Spectral
acceleration of an arbitrary component, computed from analysis of single horizontal
components of ground motion, could be used for planar analysis of frames, but
modern ground motion prediction equations do not exist for this definition in the
Western United States. Geometric mean spectral acceleration has been widely
used for hazard calculations for more than two decades although until recently few
structural earthquake engineers understood the definition and how to apply it. For a
pair of horizontal ground motions, the geometric mean spectral acceleration is
calculated, period-by-period, as the square root of the product of the two spectral
accelerations. (An alternate definition for geometric mean, GMRotI50, was
proposed by Boore (2010) to provide an orientation independent definition of
geometric mean spectral acceleration. That definition is not discussed here.) The
third definition, maximum direction spectral acceleration (see Huang et al. 2008a
and 2010) is the greatest unidirectional acceleration value for any possible
orientation of a pair of horizontal ground motions. Huang et al. (2009)
demonstrated the following: (1) for intermediate and longer periods the orientation
of maximum shaking is relatively similar for a wide range of periods; and (2) for
short periods (i.e., 0.1 seconds), the orientation of maximum shaking varies
significantly by period.
FEMA 1051
3.4.1.1.2 Method 1 for Single MCER Target Spectrum. In this design example, the
“Method 2” approach will be used for creating the target spectra (often called the
“scenario” or “conditional mean” spectrum approach). Even so, this section
demonstrates the process for computing the “Method 1” MCER Target Spectrum,
both for this completeness and because this is the first step to computing the
Method 2 spectra.

First a site specific response spectrum must be derived using the procedures in
Chapter 12 of the Standard. Table 3.4-2 shows the resulting spectrum coming from
the site specific response spectrum procedure. For this example site, the
deterministic lower limits control for most of the period ranges.

SELECTION
For each of the two scenario spectra, eleven ground motion time histories are
selected and two separate ground motion sets are formed. The traditional
approach has been to select ground motions having magnitudes, fault distances,
source mechanisms, and site soil conditions that are roughly similar to those likely
to cause the ground motion intensity level of interest, and not to explicitly consider
spectral shape in ground motion selection. In many cases, however, response
spectrum shape is the ground motion property most correlated with structural
response (PEER 2009), so the updated Chapter 16 selection method includes
spectral shape as an important consideration when selecting ground motions.

The selection of recorded motions occurs in two steps. Step 1 involves pre-
selecting the ground motion records in the database having reasonable magnitude,
fault distance, source mechanisms, site soil conditions, and range of useable
frequencies; the PEER database is used in this example (Chiou et al. 2008). In
completing this pre-selection, it is permissible to use relatively liberal ranges
because Step 2 involves selecting motions that provide good matches to a target
spectrum (which implicitly accounts for many of the above issues).
The following lists explain the Step 1 and Step 2 criteria and Table 3.4-3
summarizes the target values and chosen ranges for the selection of ground
motions.
Step 1 Criteria for initial screening of ground motions are as follows:

3.4.1.3 Ground Motion Modification. Because the building is located at a near-fault

site, this design example utilizes the amplitude-scaling approach rather than the
spectral matching approach. This is both to avoid the complication of
demonstrating that the pulse characteristics are retained through the matching
process (as required by Section 16.2.3) and to avoid the 10% higher target
spectrum required when spectral matching is utilized (as required by Section
16.2.3.3).
The target spectrum is defined in ASCE 7-16 to be a maximum direction spectrum.
Therefore, when the ground motions are scaled to the target spectrum, the
maximum direction spectral acceleration spectrum is scaled to meet or exceed the
target spectrum over the period range of interest. The scaling is not done for the
spectra in each direction of the building (e.g. x-direction versus y-direction or fault-
normal versus fault-parallel), but is rather done based on this maximum direction
spectrum definition.
The following two figures show the spectra of the final two scaled ground motions
sets. Figure 3.4-4 shows the set selected and scaled for a 0.75s period and Figure
3.4-5 shows the set selected and scaled for a 3.75s period.
Guidelines for Nonlinear Structural Analysis for Design of
Buildings

Nonlinear response-history analysis is a dynamic analysis where the structural

model is subjected to one or more ground motions that are selected and scaled
according to the goals of the analysis. Nonlinear response-history analysis
overcomes most limitations of nonlinear static (pushover) analysis (Chapter 4) due
to its ability to accurately represent multi-mode behavior and other time or history
dependent behaviors such as rate-dependent effects, path-dependent cyclic
behavior, and a realistic modeling of ground motion characteristics (through proper
ground motion selection) such as spectral shape, long duration and near-fault
pulse effects. The topics covered in this chapter include the following: (1)
characterization of the earthquake ground motions; (2) numerical modeling
considerations in performing the time-step integration; and (3) interpretation and
reporting of results.

Unlike nonlinear static analysis, nonlinear response-history analysis offers a more

accurate representation of the temporal response of the structure to the input
ground motions. In order to obtain meaningful results, it is important that the input
grounds motions reflect as accurately as possible the characteristics of the seismic
hazard at the site. This section summarizes how to characterize earthquake
ground motions when the goal is prediction of mean structural response for a
specified level of ground motion demand. Selection and scaling of ground motions
is a broad topic and this section does not cover all possible aspects related to
ground motions. The following decisions have to be made to characterize ground
motions:

Number of ground motions. ASCE/SEI 7-16 requires 11 motions for predicting

the mean building response under MCER-level ground motions, per the considered
scenario. This is the number that is recommended for most cases, but fewer
motions could be used at lower ground motion intensities where there is less
nonlinearity in the structure or for selected design or modeling sensitivity analyses.
If accurate prediction of response variability is required, in addition to the mean
response estimate, then thirty or more motions might be necessary and the
selection and scaling approach would need to be modified to explicitly account for
ground motion variability. For such cases, the user is referred to the Conditional
Spectrum approach outlined in NIST GCR 11-917-15, Selecting and Scaling
Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing Response-History Analyses (NIST,
2011b).

Components of ground motion. In most cases, two horizontal components of

ground motion are used and no vertical motion is included in the structural
analysis. However, if the building is sensitive to vertical motions (e.g., long spans,
large cantilever elements or transfer girders, exceptionally high vertical ground
motions in the near-field), a vertical component of motion should be included, or
alternatively a study should be performed to verify that the effect is not significant.
Refer to Section C16.3.1 of ASCE/SEI 7-16 for more guidance.

Ground motion intensity measure. The ground motion intensity is usually

defined as an elastic acceleration response spectrum, Sa, which is typically
obtained through a seismic hazard analysis. This response spectrum can be
expressed as the geometric mean Sa (a type of average Sa value for all horizontal
orientations) or maximum direction Sa (the largest Sa in any horizontal orientation).
It is critical to use a consistent definition of Sa for both the target spectrum and the
spectra computed for the ground motion records.
Spectral matching. Spectral matching is a viable approach to develop ground
motions for nonlinear analysis when the goal is to predict mean building response.
Because spectral matching can cause significant modification of the record signal
frequency and energy content, care must be taken to ensure that important motion
characteristics are retained after the matching process has been completed. This is
especially important for near-source motions with pulses. The reader is referred to
Section C16.2.4.3 of ASCE/SEI 7-16 for further information on the use of spectral
matching and the 10% penalty applied to spectral matching in ASCE/SEI 7-16.
One potential disadvantage of tight spectral matching is that it can reduce or
eliminate variability in the ground motion suite. This can lead to unexpected or
unconservative results if the analysis intends to consider individual record
structural response in addition to the mean response, which is the reason for the
10% penalty in ASCE/SEI 7-16.

Application of motions to structural model. Consistent with Section 16.2.5.1 of

ASCE/SEI 7-16, for near-fault sites, ground motions should be applied in the fault-
normal and fault-parallel orientations. For sites that are not characterized as near-
fault, these specific orientations do not need to be retained and motions can be
applied arbitrarily to the building, which means that the average of the components
applied in one direction should be comparable to the other direction. In either case,
multiple orientations of the same records are generally deemed to be unnecessary,
although some codes still require that in certain cases (e.g., California Office of
Statewide Health Planning and Development and ASCE/SEI 41-13); if the analyst
is interested in performing additional analyses, it might be more useful to use
additional ground motion records rather than run multiple orientations using the
same records.
PAPER
Number of ground motions: Given the inherent variability in earthquake ground
motions, design standards typically require analyses for multiple ground motions to
provide statistically robust measures of the demands. For example, ASCE 7
requires analyses for at least seven ground motions (or ground motion pairs for
three-dimensional analyses) to determine mean values of demand parameters for
design. In concept, it is possible to obtain reliable mean values with fewer records,
such as through the use of spectrally matched records, but there is currently no
consensus on methods to do so. Moreover, while one could calculate additional
statistics besides the mean, e.g., the standard deviation of the demand
parameters, the reliability of such statistics is questionable when based on only
seven ground motions. This is especially true when spectrally matched records are
used, where the natural variability in the ground motions is suppressed.

Target hazard spectra or scenario: While the earthquake hazard is a continuum,

building codes typically define specific ground motion hazard levels for specific
performance checks. Generally, the hazard is defined in terms of response spectral
accelerations with a specified mean annual frequency of exceedence, although
other definitions are possible including scenario earthquakes, e.g., an earthquake
with a specified magnitude and distance from the site, or deterministic bounds on
ground motion intensities.
ASCE 7-10
Appropriate ground motions shall be selected from events having magnitudes, fault
distance, and source mechanisms that are consistent with those that control the
maximum considered earthquake. Where the required number of recorded ground
motion pairs is not available, appropriate simulated ground motion pairs are
permitted to be used to make up the total number required. For each pair of
horizontal ground motion components, a square root of the sum of the squares
(SRSS) spectrum shall be constructed by taking the SRSS of the 5 percent-
damped response spectra for the scaled components (where an identical scale
factor is applied to both components of a pair). Each pair of motions shall be
scaled such that in the period range from 0.2T to 1.5T, the average of the SRSS
spectra from all horizontal component pairs does not fall below the corresponding
ordinate of the response spectrum used in the design, determined in accordance
with Section 11.4.5 or 11.4.7.