Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
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.
Kohrangi et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: