Abstract
The advantages and disadvantages of using scalar and vector ground motion intensity measures (IMs) are discussed for the local, story-level seismic response assessment of three-dimensional (3-D) buildings. Candidate IMs are spectral accelerations, at a single period ( Sa) or averaged over a period range ( Sa avg). Consistent scalar and vector probabilistic seismic hazard analysis results were derived for each IM, as described in the companion paper in this issue ( Kohrangi et al. 2016 ). The response hazard curves were computed for three buildings with reinforced concrete infilled frames using the different IMs as predictors. Among the scalar IMs, Sa avg tends to be the best predictor of both floor accelerations and inter story drift ratios at practically any floor. However, there is an improvement in response estimation efficiency when employing vector IMs, specifically for 3-D buildings subjected to both horizontal components of ground motion. This improvement is shown to be most significant for a tall plan-asymmetric building.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
