Evaluation of predictors of non-linear seismic demands using 'fishbone' models of SMRF buildings

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Volumn 32, Issue 14, 2003, Pages 2267-2288

  Luco, Nicolas ^a   Mori, Yasuhiro ^b   Funahashi, Yosuke ^b   Cornell, C Allin ^a   Nakashima, Masayoshi ^c  

^a Stanford University   (United States)

^b NAGOYA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^c KYOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Fishbone models; Inelastic time history analysis; Near field earthquake ground motions; Non linear dynamic analysis; Seismic drift demands; Steel moment resisting frame buildings

Indexed keywords

BUILDINGS; DEGREES OF FREEDOM (MECHANICS); EARTHQUAKES; ELASTICITY; STEEL; STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS;

STEEL MOMENT-RESISTING FRAME (SMRF) BUILDINGS;

SEISMOLOGY;

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING; SEISMIC DESIGN; STRUCTURAL RESPONSE;

EID: 0344082183     PISSN: 00988847     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.331     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Collins KR, Wen YK, Foutch DA. Dual-level seismic design: a reliability-based methodology. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1996; 25:1433-1467.
2. FEMA 351. Recommended seismic evaluation and upgrade criteria for existing welded steel moment-frame buildings. SAC Joint Venture; Sacramento, California, 2000.
3. Cornell CA. Calculating building seismic performance reliability: a basis for multi-level design norms. Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Mexico, 1996; No. 2122.
4. Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO, Foutch DA. The probabilistic basis for the 2000 SAC/FEMA steel moment frame guidelines. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 2002; 128(4):526-533.
5. Ogawa K, Kamura H, Inoue K. Modeling of moment resisting frame to fishbone-shaped frame for response analysis. Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering (AIJ) 1999; 521:119-126 (in Japanese).
6. Nakashima M, Ogawa K, Inoue K. Generic frame model for simulation of earthquake responses of steel moment frames. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2002; 31(3):671-692.
7. Luco N. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis, SMRF connection fractures, and near-source effects. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 2002.
8. Luco N, Cornell CA. Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Under revision for publication in Earthquake Spectra, 2003.
9. Chopra AK. Dynamic of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering; 1st Edition. Prentice Hall: New Jersey, 1995.
10. Veletsos AS, Newmark NM. Effect of inelastic behavior on the response of simple systems to earthquake motions. Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 1960; 895-912.
11. Prakash V, Powell GH, Campbell S. DRAIN-2DX: Base program description and user guide, version 1.10. Report No. UCB/SEMM-93117; Department of Civil Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California, 1993.
12. FEMA 355C. State of the art report on systems performance of steel moment frames subject to earthquake ground shaking. SAC Joint Venture; Sacramento, California, 2000.
13. The Building Research Institute and Kozai Club. Evaluation of plastic deformation responses of steel moment frames subjected to earthquake motions. Report of Committee on Numerical Analysis Procedures 1995.
14. Liu J, Astaneh-Asl A. Cyclic testing of simple connections including effects of slab. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 2000; 126(1):32-39.
15. Nakashima M, Matsumiya T, Asano K. Comparison in earthquake responses of steel moment frames subjected to near-fault strong motions recorded in Japan, Taiwan, and the U.S. International Workshop on Annual Commemoration of Chi-Chi Earthquake, Taipei, Taiwan, 2000; 112-123.
16. Alavi B, Krawinkler H. Effects of near-fault ground motions on frame structures. John A Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Report No. 138; Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 2000.
17. Somerville PG, Smith N, Punyamurthula S, Sun J. Development of ground motion time histories for phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC steel project. Report No. SAC/BD-97/04; SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, California, 1997.
18. Somerville PG. Development of an improved ground motion representation for near fault ground motions. SMIP98 Seminar on Utilization of Strong-Motion Data; Oakland, California, 1998.
19. Goel RK, Chopra AK. Period formulas for moment-resisting frame buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1997; 123(11):1454-1461.
20. Rice JA. Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis, 2nd Edition. Duxbury Press: California, 1995.
21. Sakamoto J, Kohama Y, Mori Y. A statistical representation of earthquake load effects for use in reliability-based design. Proceedings of ICOSSAR '85, the 4th International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability, Kobe, Japan, 1985; II/217-II/226.
22. Funahashi Y, Mori Y, Nakashima M. Estimation of maximum displacement response of multi-story frame considering modal shape after yielding. Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting. AIJ 2002; 9:57-58 (in Japanese).
23. Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2002; 31(3):561-582.
24. Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Engineering Structures 1998; 20:452-464.
25. FEMA 273. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington, D.C., 1997.