Issues and Approaches for Implementing Conditional Mean Spectra in Practice

Research Article| January 14, 2014 Issues and Approaches for Implementing Conditional Mean Spectra in Practice Brian Carlton; Brian Carlton aUniversity of California, Berkeley, 418 Davis Hall, Berkeley, California 94720‐1710bcarlton@berkeley.edu Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Norman Abrahamson Norman Abrahamson bPacific Gas & Electric Company, Geosciences Department, P.O. Box 770000, Mail Code N4C, San Francisco, California 94177 Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Author and Article Information Brian Carlton aUniversity of California, Berkeley, 418 Davis Hall, Berkeley, California 94720‐1710bcarlton@berkeley.edu Norman Abrahamson bPacific Gas & Electric Company, Geosciences Department, P.O. Box 770000, Mail Code N4C, San Francisco, California 94177 Publisher: Seismological Society of America First Online: 14 Jul 2017 Online ISSN: 1943-3573 Print ISSN: 0037-1106 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2014) 104 (1): 503–512. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130129 Article history First Online: 14 Jul 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Permissions Search Site Citation Brian Carlton, Norman Abrahamson; Issues and Approaches for Implementing Conditional Mean Spectra in Practice. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2014;; 104 (1): 503–512. doi: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130129 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyBulletin of the Seismological Society of America Search Advanced Search Abstract Ground‐motion selection for dynamic analysis of structures is often based on the conditional mean spectrum (CMS). The CMS is a spectrum that matches the uniform hazard spectrum (UHS) at a conditioning period but that also represents the response from a single earthquake scenario more realistically than the UHS. This paper discusses and offers solutions for several issues related to implementing CMS in practice. The issues covered are the selection of the conditioning period, the number of CMS necessary to cover the range of the UHS, how to broaden the CMS to match the UHS with fewer conditioning periods, how to compute a CMS for several ground‐motion prediction equations that is consistent with probabilistic seismic‐hazard analysis, the application of correlation coefficients to hard‐rock sites, and the robustness of correlation coefficients. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.