Behavior of moment-resisting frame structures subjected to near-fault ground motions

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Volumn 33, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 687-706

  Alavi, Babak ^a   Krawinkler, Helmut ^b  

^a EXPONENT INC   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Frame structures; Near fault; Near field; Near source; Pulse; Seismic demands

Indexed keywords

DUCTILITY; EARTHQUAKES; ELASTICITY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SHEAR STRENGTH;

EQUIVALENT PULSE CONCEPT; MOMENT-RESISTING FRAME STRUCTURES; NEAR-FAULT GROUND MOTIONS; STRUCTURAL RESPONSE;

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS;

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING; GROUND MOTION; SEISMIC RESPONSE; STRUCTURAL RESPONSE;

EID: 2342559851     PISSN: 00988847     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.369     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Somerville P, Smith N, Graves R, Abrahamson N. Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity. Seismological Research Letters 1997; 68: 180-203.
2. Somerville P. Development of an improved ground motion representation for near fault ground motions. Proceedings of SMIP98 Seminar on Utilization of Strong-Motion Data, Oakland, CA, September 1998.
3. Structural Engineers Association of California. Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary. 7th Edition. SEAOC: Sacramento, California, 1999.
4. International Conference of Building Officials. Uniform Building Code. Whittier, California, 1997.
5. 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, 1997.
6. Federal Emergency Management Agency. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures. 2000 Edition. FEMA 368. FEMA: Washington, DC, 2001.
7. Alavi B, Krawinkler H. Effects of near-fault ground motions on frame structures. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Report No 138, Stanford University, February 2001.
8. Seneviratna G, Krawinkler H. Evaluation of inelastic MDOF effects for seismic design. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Report No. 120, Stanford University, June 1997.
9. Chopra A. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1995.
10. Stewart J, Chiou S, Bray J, Graves R, Somerville P, Abrahamson N. Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design. PEER-2001/09. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, September 2001.
11. Sasani, M, Bertero V. Importance of severe pulse-type ground motions in performance-based engineering: historical and critical review. 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Upper Hutt, New Zealand, 2000.
12. Rodriguez-Marek A. Near-fault site response. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, Fall 2000.
13. Ramsey F, Schafer D. The Statistical Sleuth: a Course in Methods of Data Analysis. Duxbury Press: Belmont, California, 1996.
14. Somerville P. Characterization of near-fault ground motions. Proceedings of the US-Japan Workshop on Effects of Near-Field Earthquake Shaking, San Francisco, CA, March 2000.
15. Somerville P. Magnitude scaling of near fault ground motions. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Annual Commemoration of Chi-Chi Earthquake, National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, September 2000.