Adapting earthquake actions in Eurocode 8 for performance-based seismic design

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 39-55

  Bommer, Julian J ^a   Pinho, Rui ^b  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering   (Italy)

Author keywords

Design levels; Earthquake actions; Eurocode 8; Loss modelling; Performance based seismic design; Return periods

Indexed keywords

APPROXIMATION THEORY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DEFORMATION; EARTHQUAKE RESISTANCE; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MONTE CARLO METHODS; STRUCTURAL LOADS;

DESIGN LEVELS; EARTHQUAKE ACTIONS; LOSS MODELLING; PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC DESIGN; RETURN PERIODS;

STRUCTURAL DESIGN;

BUILDING CODE; EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING; SEISMIC DESIGN;

EID: 29644434931     PISSN: 00988847     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.530     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. ATC. Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for buildings. Report ATC 3-06, Applied Technology Council, 1978.
2. SEAOC. Vision 2000: Performance Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento CA, 1995.
3. CEN. Application and Use of Eurocodes. CONSTRUCT 01/483. Direction Général Enterprises, Commission Européenne, Brussels, 2002.
4. CEN. Eurocode 8, Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures, European Prestandard ENV 1998. Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, 1994.
5. CEN. Eurocode 8, Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance - Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. EN 1998-1: 2004. Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, 2004.
6. Moehle JP. Displacement-based design of RC structures subjected to earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 1992; 8(3):403-428.
7. Sullivan TJ, Calvi GM, Priestley MJN, Kowalsky MJ. The limitations and performances of different displacement based design methods. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2003; 7(Special Issue 1):201-241.
8. ATC. Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. FEMA-440, ATC, California, U.S.A., 2005.
9. McGuire RK. Seismic design spectra and mapping procedures using hazard analysis based directly on oscillator response. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1977; 5:211-234.
10. IAEE. Regulations for Seismic Design: A World List - 1996. International Association for Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, 1996.
11. ICC. International Building Code. International Code Council, 2000.
12. Ambraseys NN, Simpson KA, Bommer JJ. The prediction of horizontal response spectra in Europe. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1996; 25:371-400.
13. Fajfar P. Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1999; 28:979-993.
14. Kowalsky MJ, Priestley MJN, MacRae GA. Displacement-based design of RC bridge columns in seismic regions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1995; 24(12):1623-1643.
15. Tolis SV, Faccioli E. Displacement design spectra. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1999; 3(1):107-125.
16. Faccioli E, Paolucci R, Rey J. Displacement spectra for long periods. Earthquake Spectra 2004; 20(2): 347-376.
17. BSSC. NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures, 2003 Edition, Part 1 - Provisions, Part 2 - Commentary. Report FEMA 450, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC, 2004.
18. Joyner WB, Boore DM. Measurement, characterization and prediction of strong ground motion. Proceedings of Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II, GT Div/ASCE, Park City, Utah, 27-30 June 1988; 43-102.
19. Bommer JJ, Elnashai AS. Displacement spectra for seismic design. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1999; 3(1):1-32.
20. Boore DM, Bommer JJ. Processing of strong-motion accelerograms: needs, options and consequences. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2005; 25(2):93-115.
21. Gregor NJ, Bolt BA. Peak strong motion attenuation relations for horizontal and vertical ground displacements. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1997; 1(2):275-292.
22. Spudich P. What seismology may be able to bring to future codes (a seismologist's perspective). Report ATC 35-3, Applied Technology Council, 1999; 21-33.
23. Dwairi H, Kowalsky MJ. Examination of the equivalent viscous damping approach. International Workshop on Performance-Based Seismic Design (PBSD) - Concepts and Implementation, Bled, 2004.
24. Iwan WD. The use of equivalent linearization in performance based engineering. Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances and New Challenges in Earthquake Engineering Research, Harbin, China, 2002.
25. Ruiz-Garcia J, Miranda E. Inelastic displacement ratios for evaluation of existing structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2003; 32(8):1237-1250.
26. Bommer JJ, Mendis R. Scaling of spectral displacement ordinates with damping ratios. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2005; 33(2):145-165.
27. Somerville PG. Ground motion prediction for performance based seismic engineering. Proceedings of the 65th SEAOC Convention, Maui, Hawaii, 1996.
28. Grases J, Cascante G, Gajardo E. Earthquake hazard mapping for seismic design: a new approach. Proceedings of the 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. 1, Madrid, 1992; 5777-5782.
29. Garcia-Mayordomo J, Faccioli E, Paolucci R. Comparative study of the seismic hazard assessments in European national seismic codes. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2004; 2:51-73.
30. Bommer JJ, Elnashai AS, Weir AG. Compatible acceleration and displacement spectra for seismic design codes. Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, 2000; Paper no. 207.
31. McGuire RK. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: closing the loop. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1995; 85:1275-1284.
32. Bazzurro P, Cornell CA. Disaggregation of seismic hazard. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1999; 89:501-520.
33. Merovich AT. Future characterizations of ground motion for design (an engineer's perspective). Report ATC 35-3, Applied Technology Council, 1999; 9-20.
34. Harmsen SD, Perkins D, Frankel A. Deaggregation of probabilistic ground motions in Central and Eastern United States. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1999; 89:1-13.
35. Bommer JJ. Seismic zonation for comprehensive definition of earthquake actions. Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Seismic Zonation, Palm Springs, California, 2000.
36. Anderson JG. Benefits of scenario ground motion maps. Engineering Geology 1997; 48:43-57.
37. Stewart JP, Chiou S-J, Bray JD, Graves RW, Somerville PG, Abrahamson NA. Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2002; 22:765-772.
38. Algermissen ST, Perkins DM. A probabilistic estimate of maximum accelerations in rock in the contiguous United States. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 76-416, 1976.
39. Perkins DM. Written communication (email) to Dr Dario Slejko (Trieste), 2004.
40. Leyendecker EV, Hunt RJ, Frankel AD, Rukstales KS. Development of maximum considered earthquake ground motion maps. Earthquake Spectra 2000; 16:21-40.
41. Heidebrecht AC. Seismic design implications of revisions to the national building code of Canada. Proceedings of the Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2003; Paper no. 148.
42. Fardis MN. A European perspective to performance-based seismic design, assessment and retrofitting. Proceedings of an International Workshop on Performance-based Seismic Design: Concepts and Implementation, PEER 2005/ 05, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California, 2005; 1-13.
43. Oliveira CS, Campos-Costa A, Sousa ML. Definition of seismic action in the context of EC-8: topics for discussion. Proceedings of the Twelfth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, 2000; Paper no. 2552.
44. Fardis MN (ed.). Experimental and numerical investigations on the seismic response of R.C. infilled frames and recommendations for code provisions. ECOEST-PREC8 Report No. 6, LNEC, Lisbon, 1996.
45. Severn RT, Calvi GM (eds). European activities for the development of Eurocode 8 - summary report. ECOEST-PREC8 Report No. 9, LNEC, Lisbon, 1996.
46. Bommer JJ, Pinho R, Crowley H. Using displacement-based earthquake loss assessment in the selection of seismic code design levels. Proceedings of International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability (ICOSSAR'05), Rome, 2005; 3567-3574.