Comparison of seismic responses using recorded and simulated ground motions for NZS1170.5-based 3D structural analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.1774Abstract
This paper compares the responses of two 3D building models subjected to recorded and simulated ground motions following New Zealand (NZ) code-based ground-motion selection and scaling provisions to examine the applicability of simulated ground motions for use in conventional engineering practice in NZ. The buildings were designed according to NZ building codes and physically constructed in Christchurch prior to the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes. 40 recorded ground motions from the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, along with previously published simulated ground motions for this event were considered. The seismic responses of the structures are principally quantified via the peak floor acceleration and peak inter-storey drift ratio. The peak floor accelerations of both buildings, and peak drifts of the 13 storey in-plan regular RC wall structure, were statistically consistent; whereas the peak drifts for the seven storey in-plan irregular mixed system are approximately 30% different. Overall, the results indicate a general agreement in seismic demands obtained using the recorded and simulated ground motion ensembles, and hence provide further evidence that state-of-the-art simulated ground motions can be used in code-based structural performance assessments in place of, or in combination with, ensembles of historically recorded ground motions.
References
1 Bradley BA, Pettinga D, Baker JW and Fraser J (2017). “Guidance on the utilization of earthquake-induced ground motion simulations in engineering practice”. Earthquake Spectra, 33(3): 809–835. https://doi.org/10.1193/120216EQS219EP
2 Baker J, Bradley B and Stafford P (2021). Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, ISBN 978-1-108-42505-6.
3 Tarbali K and Bradley BA (2016). “The effect of causal parameter bounds in PSHA-based ground motion selection”. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 45(9): 1515–1535. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2721
4 Bijelic N, Lin T and Deierlein GG (2018). “Validation of the SCEC Broadband Platform simulations for tall building risk assessments considering spectral shape and duration of the ground motion”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 47(11): 2233–2251. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3066
5 Baker JW, Rezaeian S, Goulet CA, Luco N and Teng G (2021). “A subset of CyberShake ground-motion time series for response-history analysis”. Earthquake Spectra, 37(2): 1162–1176. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020981970
6 Hachem MM, Mathias N, Wang Y, Fajfar P, Tsai K, Ingham J, Oyarzo Vera C and Lee S (2010). “An international comparison of ground motion selection criteria for seismic design”. Joint IABSE-fib Conference on Codes in Structural Engineering: Developments and Needs for International Practice, ISBN 9537621065.
7 ASCE-7 (2017). “Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures”. Technical Report
ASCE/SEI 7-16, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
8 CEN (2004). “Eurocode 8 – Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings”. Technical Report EN 1998-1, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
9 NZS1170.5:2004 (2004). “Structural Design Actions. Part 5: Earthquake Actions – New Zealand”. Technical report, Standards New Zealand, Wellington.
10 Lee RL, Bradley BA, Stafford PJ, Graves RWand Rodriguez-Marek A (2022). “Hybrid broadband ground-motion simulation validation of small magnitude active shallow crustal earthquakes in New Zealand”. Earthquake Spectra, 38(4): 2548–2579. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930221109297
11 Lee R, Bradley B, Graves R, Paterson J and Motha J (2021). “Source modelling insights from ground motion simulation validation of moderate magnitude active shallow crustal earthquakes in New Zealand”. 2021 New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Annual Technical Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand, pp. 1–8.
12 Dupuis M, Lee R and Bradley B (2025). “Hybrid broadband ground-motion simulation validation of smallmagnitude
subduction earthquakes in New Zealand”. Earthquake Spectra, 41(5): 4046–4081. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930251353816
13 Dupuis M (2025). “Hybrid Broadband Ground-Motion Simulation of Mw3.5–8.7 Subduction Earthquakes in New Zealand”. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. https://doi.org/10.26021/16190
14 Pajaro CA, Bradley B and Lee R (2025). “Validation of hybrid broadband ground-motion simulation for large magnitude earthquakes in New Zealand”. 2025 New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Annual Technical Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, p. 9.
15 Bazzurro P, Sjoberg B and Luco N (2004). “Post-Elastic Response of Structures to Synthetic Ground Motions”. Technical report, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center Lifelines Program Project, Berkeley, CA, 65–112.
16 Iervolino I, De Luca F and Cosenza E (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
17 Atkinson GM and Goda K (2010). “Inelastic seismic demand of real versus simulated ground-motion records for Cascadia subduction earthquakes”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 100(1): 102–115. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090023
18 Galasso C, Zareian F, Iervolino I and Graves R (2012). “Validation of ground-motion simulations for historical events using SDoF systems”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 102(6): 2727–2740. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120018
19 Jayaram N and Shome N (2012). “A statistical analysis of the response of tall buildings to recorded and simulated
ground motions”. 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 1–10.
20 Galasso C, Zhong P, Zareian F, Iervolino I and Graves RW (2013). “Validation of ground-motion simulations for historical events using MDoF systems”. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 42(9): 1395–1412. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2278
21 Bijelic N, Lin T and Deierlein G (2014). “Seismic response of a tall building to recorded and simulated ground motions”. Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering, Anchorage, AK.
22 Burks LS, Zimmerman RB and Baker JW (2015). “Evaluation of hybrid broadband ground motion simulations for response history analysis and design”. Earthquake Spectra, 31(3): 1691–1710. https://doi.org/10.1193/091113EQS248M
23 Galasso C, Kaviani P, Tsioulou A and Zareian F (2020). “Validation of ground motion simulations for historical events using skewed bridges”. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 24(10): 1652–1674. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2018.1483277
24 SESOC (2025). “Nonlinear Response History Analysis Design Guide”. Technical report, Structural Engineering Society New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
25 Standards New Zealand (2025). “Technical Specification: Structural Design Actions. Part 5: Earthquake Actions – New Zealand”. Technical Report TS 1170.5:2025, Standards New Zealand, Wellington.
26 NZS4203:1976 (1976). “Code of Practice for General Structural Design and Design Loadings for Buildings”. Technical Report, Standards New Zealand, Wellington.
27 NZS3101:1982 (1982). “Code of Practice for Design of Concrete Structures”. Technical report, Standards New Zealand, Wellington.
28 CERC (2012). “The Performance of Christchurch CBD Buildings”. Technical report, Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission, Christchurch, New Zealand.
29 Mondkar D and Powell G (1979). “ANSR-II: Analysis of Nonlinear Structural Response - User Manual”. Technical Report UCB/EERC-79/17, Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
30 FEMA (2000). “Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings”. Technical Report FEMA 356, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
31 Razafindrakoto HN, Bradley BA and Graves RW (2018). “Broadband ground-motion simulation of the 2011 Mw 6.2 Christchurch, New Zealand, earthquake”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 108(4): 2130–2147. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170388
32 Graves RW and Pitarka A (2010). “Broadband groundmotion simulation using a hybrid approach”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 100(5A): 2095–2123. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100057
33 Graves RW and Pitarka A (2015). “Refinements to the Graves and Pitarka (2010) broadband ground-motion simulation method”. Seismological Research Letters, 86(1): 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140101
34 Shome N (1999). “Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis of Nonlinear Structures”. Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA.
35 Aslani H and Miranda E (2003). “Probabilistic Response Assessment for Building-Specific Loss Estimation”. Technical Report PEER 2003/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
36 Fajfar P, Marusic D and Perus I (2005). “Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic analysis of buildings”. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 9(06): 831–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460509350568
37 Marusic D and Fajfar P (2005). “On the inelastic seismic response of asymmetric buildings under bi-axial excitation”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34(8): 943–963. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.463
38 Erduran E and Ryan KL (2011). “Effects of torsion on the behavior of peripheral steel-braced frame systems”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 40(5): 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1032
39 Ibarra LF and Krawinkler H (2005). “Global Collapse of Frame Structures under Seismic Excitations”. Technical Report PEER 2005/06, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
40 Krawinkler H, Zareian F, Medina RA and Ibarra LF (2006). “Decision support for conceptual performance-based design”. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 35(1): 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.536
41 Zareian F and Krawinkler H (2007). “Assessment of probability of collapse and design for collapse safety”. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 36(13): 1901–1914. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.702
42 Ang A and Tang W (1975). Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning and Design, Volume I, Basic Principles. Wiley, New York.
43 Boore DM, Watson-Lamprey J and Abrahamson NA (2006). “Orientation-independent measures of ground motion”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 96(4A): 1502–1511. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050209
44 Boore DM (2010). “Orientation-independent, nongeometricmean measures of seismic intensity from two horizontal components of motion”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 100(4): 1830–1835. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090400
45 Shahi SK and Baker JW (2014). “NGA-West2 models for ground motion directionality”. Earthquake Spectra, 30(3): 1285–1300. https://doi.org/10.1193/040913EQS097M
46 Stewart JP, Abrahamson NA, Atkinson GM, Baker JW, Boore DM, Bozorgnia Y, CampbellKW, Comartin CD, Idriss I and Lew M (2011). “Representation of bidirectional ground motions for design spectra in building codes”. Earthquake Spectra, 27(3): 927–937. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3608001
47 Efron B and Tibshirani RJ (1994). An introduction to the bootstrap. CRC press, ISBN 0412042312.
48 Welch BL (1938). “The significance of the difference between two means when the population variances are unequal”. Biometrika, 29(3/4): 350–362. https://doi.org/10.2307/2332010
