1. GMSM Methodology and Terminology Christine Goulet, UCLA GMSM Core Members

2. Plan  Methodology overview  Method Objectives  Solicitation Information  Terminology

3. Methodology  Propose scenarios (M, r)  M=7, r=10 km,  +2  2   M=7.5, r=10 km,  +1  1   Select a series of structures (buildings) to be analyzed BuildingStoriesTypeComplianceT1 (s) A4Modern special moment frame 2003 IBC0.97 B12Modern special moment frame 2003 IBC, ASCE7- 02, ACI 318-02 2.01 C20Modern special moment frame 2003 IBC, ASCE7- 02, ACI 318-02 2.63 D12Modern (ductile) planar shear wall None specifically, but consistent with modern planar wall design 1.20

4. Methodology  Select pertinent Engineering Demand Parameters (EDPs)  Maximum Inter-Story Drift Ratio (MIDR)  Others considered, to be discussed:  Peak Floor Acceleration  Base shear  Request ground motion suites for each method of GMSM  Perform the nonlinear dynamic analyses (NLDA)  Compute the distribution of the selected EDP response

5. Methodology  Compute the Point of Comparison (POC)  Rerun structural simulations  Based on larger set of records corresponding to the scenario  Perform the nonlinear dynamic analyses (NLDA)  Compute the distribution of the selected EDP response PDF EDP(=MIDR) POC Median

6. Methodology  Analysis of results, observations and conclusions  Compare results of suites with POC  Draw conclusions and recommendations PDF EDP Method Z POC Method Y  … Repeat the whole procedure for other structures and scenarios …

7. Method objectives MIDR for a given M, r, S, and F 1. Full distribution 2. Median only MIDR for a given M, r, S, F and Sa(T1) 3. Full distribution 4. Median only Applications: Earthquake scenarios PSHA-type integration for building response Applications: Design of new buildings Rehabilitation of existing buildings Performance-Based evaluation

8. Solicitation this year Objectives 3 & 4: predict the maximum interstory drift  Building B, scenario M7 and M7.5  Buildings C and D, scenario M7  Building A, scenario M7  Four sets of 7 records  To match building code requirements (7)  To allow larger suites for statistics and research purposes (28) 19 methods 46 variants

9. Nomenclature – EDP distributions  Median: 50 % of entries above, 50% below  Mean: sum of all entries divided by the number of entries PDF EDP Mean Median Normal distribution Skewed distribution MedianMean EDP

10. Nomenclature – EDP distributions Skewed (lognormal) distribution 0 0.5 1 PDF CDF Probability EDP

11. 98 th percentile Nomenclature – ground motions  Standard deviation , and Epsilon  Standard Deviation,  Median,   Sa(T1) PDF       Generic GMPE Median Median + 1 Standard Dev. M=7 R=10 km Soil Sa(g) T (s) T1T1

12. On the scenarios  M 7-7.5 within 20 km often controls the hazard in urban CA  Why +2  ?  To push the structures well in the NL range  It is not unreasonable East Bay 2% in 50 average: 1.6 0.5% in 50 average: 2.1

13. Relative Contribution 20% 10% 0% 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 100-1000 5.0-5.5 5.5-6.0 6.0-6.5 6.5-7.0 7.0-7.5 7.5-8.0 8.0-8.5 Distance (km) Magnitude Sa(1s) = 0.55g 10% in 50 years (475) 0 <  < 0.5 0.5 <  < 1 1 <  < 2 2 <  Legend   < -2 -2 <  < -1 -1 <  < -0.5 -0.5 <  < 0 Seismic Hazard Disaggregation

14. Relative Contribution 20% 10% 0% 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 100-1000 5.0-5.5 5.5-6.0 6.0-6.5 6.5-7.0 7.0-7.5 7.5-8.0 8.0-8.5 Distance (km) Magnitude Seismic Hazard Disaggregation Sa(1s) = 0.82g 2% in 50 years (2475) 0 <  < 0.5 0.5 <  < 1 1 <  < 2 2 <  Legend   < -2 -2 <  < -1 -1 <  < -0.5 -0.5 <  < 0