Research Article| January 02, 2018 On Durations, Peak Factors, and Nonstationarity Corrections in Seismic Hazard Applications of Random Vibration Theory Chris Van Houtte; Chris Van Houtte aGNS Science, 1 Fairway Drive, P.O. Box 30‐368, Lower Hutt 5040, New Zealand, c.vanhoutte@gns.cri.nzcAlso at University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Tam Larkin; Tam Larkin bDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland Mail Centre, Auckland 1142, New Zealand Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Caroline Holden Caroline Holden aGNS Science, 1 Fairway Drive, P.O. Box 30‐368, Lower Hutt 5040, New Zealand, c.vanhoutte@gns.cri.nz Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Author and Article Information Chris Van Houtte aGNS Science, 1 Fairway Drive, P.O. Box 30‐368, Lower Hutt 5040, New Zealand, c.vanhoutte@gns.cri.nzcAlso at University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Tam Larkin bDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland Mail Centre, Auckland 1142, New Zealand Caroline Holden aGNS Science, 1 Fairway Drive, P.O. Box 30‐368, Lower Hutt 5040, New Zealand, c.vanhoutte@gns.cri.nz Publisher: Seismological Society of America First Online: 02 Jan 2018 Online Issn: 1943-3573 Print Issn: 0037-1106 © Seismological Society of America Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2018) 108 (1): 418–436. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170076 Article history First Online: 02 Jan 2018 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation Chris Van Houtte, Tam Larkin, Caroline Holden; On Durations, Peak Factors, and Nonstationarity Corrections in Seismic Hazard Applications of Random Vibration Theory. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2018;; 108 (1): 418–436. doi: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170076 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 For several decades, random vibration theory (RVT) has been a popular method for predicting peak ground motions for seismic hazard assessment. Modern usage of RVT is typically in the stochastic method of simulating peak ground motion, to convert empirical models of the earthquake Fourier amplitude spectrum to response spectra, and in site response analysis. This study reexamines the underlying assumptions of RVT analysis, particularly regarding durations, peak factors, and nonstationarity corrections. It is suggested that the significant oscillator duration is the most appropriate duration metric for predicting response spectra, and an empirical model is derived using New Zealand data. This allows RVT to be easily generalized to levels of oscillator damping other than the usual 5%. For short‐duration excitations, signal nonstationarity is accounted for using a theoretical time‐dependent power spectral density function. This allows proper consideration of nonstationarity in both the signal standard deviation and the signal bandwidth. The appropriateness of commonly used Gaussian‐process peak factors is also examined. It is shown that low‐frequency oscillator response signals are not well approximated by a Gaussian distribution, which causes low‐frequency response spectra to be overpredicted. This means RVT‐optimized duration models in the literature do not have a physical interpretation at low oscillator frequencies. RVT analysis only yields approximate results, with standard deviations of 0.25 natural log units. However, it is nevertheless a simple and convenient method for rapidly predicting peak high‐frequency ground motions. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Houtte et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: