Ground motion scaling methods for different site conditions and structure characteristics

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Volumn 32, Issue 15, 2003, Pages 2425-2450

  Kurama, Y C ^a   Farrow, K T ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

^b EXXONMOBIL UPSTREAM RESEARCH COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

Ground motion scaling; Hysteresis type; Multi degree of freedom; Performance based seismic analysis and design; Single degree of freedom; Site conditions

Indexed keywords

DEGREES OF FREEDOM (MECHANICS); HYSTERESIS; SEISMOLOGY; STRUCTURES (BUILT OBJECTS); YIELD STRESS;

GROUND MOTION SCALING METHODS;

EARTHQUAKES;

BUILDING; DESIGN; GROUND MOTION; SCALE EFFECT; SEISMIC DESIGN; SEISMIC RESPONSE; STRUCTURAL RESPONSE;

EID: 0345814281     PISSN: 00988847     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.335     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. International Code Council (ICC). International Building Code (IBC), Falls Church, VA, 2000.
2. International Council of Building Officials (ICBO). Uniform Building Code, Whittier, CA, 1997.
3. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 356, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 2000.
4. Shome N, Cornell C. Normalization and scaling accelerograms for nonlinear structural analysis. Sixth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, WA, 1998 (CD-ROM).
5. Vidic T, Fajfar P, Fischinger M. Consistent inelastic design spectra: strength and displacement. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1994; 23:507-521.
6. Miranda E. Site-dependent strength-reduction factors. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1993; 119: 3503-3519.
7. Nau J, Hall W. Scaling methods for earthquake response spectra. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1984; 110: 91-109.
8. Lam N, Wilson J, Hutchinson G. The ductility reduction factor in the seismic design of buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1998; 27:749-769.
9. Farrow KT, Kurama Y. Capacity-Demand Index Relationships for Performance-Based Seismic Design. Structural Engineering Research Report #NDSE-01-02, Department of Civil Engineering and Geological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, 2001. http://www.nd.edu/~concrete
10. Shome N, Cornell C, Bazzurro P, Carballo J. Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses. Earthquake Spectra 1998; 14:469-500.
11. Martinez-Rueda J. Scaling procedure for natural accelerograms based on a system of spectrum intensity scales. Earthquake Spectra 1998; 14:135-152.
12. Nassar A, Krawinkler H. Seismic Demands for SDOF and MDOF Systems. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Report No. 95, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1991.
13. Kennedy R, Short S, Merz K, Tokarz F, Idriss I, Powers M, Sadigh K. Engineering Characterization of Ground Motion-Task I: Effects of Characteristics of Free-Field Motion on Structural Response. NUREG/CR-3805, U.S. Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 1984.
14. Arias A. A Measure of Earthquake Intensity. Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge Press, 1969.
15. Riddell R, Newmark NM. Statistical Analysis of the Response of Nonlinear Systems Subjected to Earthquakes. UILU-ENG 79-2016, Structural Research Series, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 1979.
16. Trifunac MD, Lee VW. Empirical models for scaling pseudo relative velocity spectra of strong earthquake accelerations in terms of magnitude, distance, site intensity and recording site conditions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 1989; 8:126-144.
17. Trifunac MD. Scaling earthquake motions in geotechnical design. Third International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, 1995; 11: 607-612.
18. Cornell CA, Luco N. Ground motion intensity measures for structural performance assessment at near-fault sites. U.S.-Japan Joint Workshop and Third Grantees Meeting, U.S.-Japan Cooperative Research on Urban Earthquake Disaster Mitigation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 2001.
19. Carballo JE, Cornell CA. Input to nonlinear structural analysis; modification of available accelerograms for different source and site characteristics. Sixth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, WA, 1998 (CD-ROM).
20. Keaton JR, Zeng Y, Anderson JG. Procedure for scaling earthquake records to match acceleration response spectra for engineering design. Sixth International Conference on Seismic Zonation: Managing Earthquake Risk in the 21st Century, EERI, Palm Springs, CA, 2000 (CD-ROM).
21. Carballo JE. Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis; Spectrum Matching and Design. Ph.D. Dissertation and Report RMS-41, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA, 2000. http://pitch.stanford.edu/rmsweb/ Reports/RMS41.pdf
22. Cordova PP, Deierlein GG, Mehanny SF, Cornell CA. Development of a two parameter seismic intensity measure for probabilistic assessment procedure. Second U.S.-Japan Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete Building Structures, Sapporo, Japan, 2000, PEER Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA: 195-214.
23. Luco N. Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis, SMRF Connection Fractures, and Near-source Effects. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2001.
24. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental Dynamic Analysis: Theory and Applications in Earthquake Engineering. Report No. RMS-46, RMS Program, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2002.
25. Mahin SA, Bertero VV. An Evaluation of Some Methods for Predicting the Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Buildings. UCB/EERC-75-5, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1975.
26. Kurama Y. Simplified seismic design approach for friction-damped unbonded post-tensioned precast walls. ACI Structual Journal 2001; 98:705-716.
27. Paulay P, Priestley M. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. Wiley: New York, NY, 1992.
28. Prakash V, Powell G, Campbell S. DRAIN-2DX Base Program Description and User Guide: Version 1.10. Report No. UBC/SEMM-93/17, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1993.
29. Wu S. Seismic Analysis and Retrofit of Non-Ductile Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings. Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Civil and Environmental, Eng., Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, 1995.
30. Somerville P, 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, CA, 1997.
31. Kurama Y, Sause R, Pessiki S, Lu LW. Seismic Design and Response Evaluation of Unbonded Post-Tensioned Precast Concrete Walls. Research Report No. EQ-97-01, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, 1997.
32. McCann M, Shah H. Determining strong-motion duration of earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1979; 69:1253-1265.
33. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for New Buildings. Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C., 1994.
34. Applied Technology Council (ATC). Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings. ATC 3-06, 1978.
35. 95. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1987; 15:119-132.
36. Anderson JC, Bertero VV. Uncertainties in establishing design earthquakes. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1987; 113:1709-1724.
37. Decanini LD, Mollaioli F. Parameters to be considered in the establishment of the design earthquake based on energy concepts. Structural Engin. World Wide, Paper T227-5, Elsevier, 1998.
38. Naeim F, Anderson JC. Classification and Evaluation of Earthquake Records for Design. CE 93-08, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 1993.
39. Naeim F, Anderson JC, Jain S. A data base of earthquake records for design. Fifth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Oakland, CA, 1994; 11: 263-272.
40. Krawinkler H, Rahnama M. Effects of soft soil on design spectra. Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 1992; 5841-5846.
41. The Math Works, Inc. MATLAB. Natick, MA, 2000.
42. Farrow KT, CDSPEC. WWW Document, http://www.nd.edu/~concrete, December 2001.
43. Clough R, Penzien J. Dynamics of Structures. (2nd edn). McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, 1993.
44. Chopra A, Goel R. Capacity-demand-diagram methods based on inelastic demand spectrum. Earthquake Spectra 1999; 15:637-656.
45. Freeman SA. Development and use of capacity demand spectrum method. Sixth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, WA, 1988 (CD-ROM).
46. Farrow KT, Kurama Y. SDOF demand index relationships for performance-based seismic design. Earthquake Spectra 2003; 19: to appear.