Evaluation of residual drift demands in regular multi-storey frames for performance-based seismic assessment

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Volumn 35, Issue 13, 2006, Pages 1609-1629

  Ruiz García, Jorge ^a   Miranda, Eduardo ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD MICHOACANA DE SAN NICOLÁS DE HIDALGO   (Mexico)

^b Stanford University   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment of existing structures; Inelastic intensity measure; Probabilistic seismic demand analysis; Residual drift demands

Indexed keywords

DYNAMIC MECHANICAL ANALYSIS; EARTHQUAKE RESISTANCE; HYSTERESIS; PROBABILITY; SEISMOLOGY; STRENGTH OF MATERIALS;

GROUND MOTION; HEIGHTWISE DISTRIBUTION; INELASTIC INTENSITY MEASURE; PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC ASSESSMENT; PROBABILISTIC DEMAND ANALYSIS; RESIDUAL DRIFT DEMANDS;

STRUCTURAL FRAMES;

GROUND MOTION; HYSTERESIS; MULTISTOREY BUILDING; SEISMIC RESPONSE; STRUCTURAL RESPONSE; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

EID: 33750482934     PISSN: 00988847     EISSN: 10969845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.593     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Bazzurro P, Cornell CA, Menun CA, Motahari M. Guidelines for seismic assessment of damaged buildings. Proceedings of the Thirteenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, 2004; Paper No. 17208.
2. Luco N, Bazzurro P, Cornell CA. Dynamic versus static computation of the residual capacity of a mainshock-damaged building to withstand an aftershock. Proceedings of the Thirteenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, 2004; Paper No. 2405.
3. Mackie K, Stojadinovic B. Residual displacement and post-earthquake capacity of highway bridges. Proceedings of the Thirteenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, 2004; Paper No. 1550.
4. MacRae GA, Kawashima K. Post-earthquake residual displacements of bilinear oscillators. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1997; 26:701-716.
5. Christopoulos C, Pampanin S, Priestley MJN. Performance-based seismic response of framed structures including residual deformations. Part I: single-degree-of-freedom systems. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2003; 7(1): 97-118.
6. Ruiz-García J, Miranda E. Residual displacement ratios for assessment of existing structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006; 35(3):315-336.
7. Gupta A, Krawinkler H. Seismic demands for performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frame structures (SAC Task 5.4.3). Report No. 132, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1999 (http://blume.stanford.edu/Blume/ TechnicalReports.htm)
8. Pampanin S, Christopoulos C, Priestley MJN. Performance-based seismic response of framed structures including residual deformations. Part II: multiple-degree-of-freedom systems. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2003; 7(1): 119-147.
9. Medina R, Krawinkler, H. Seismic demands for nondeteriorating frame structures and their dependence on ground motions. Report PEER 2003/13, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center, October 2003.
10. Chopra AK, Goel RK. Building period formulas for estimating seismic displacements. Earthquake Spectra 2000; 16(2):533-536.
11. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Report FEMA 356, Washington, DC, 2000.
12. Carr AJ. RUAUMOKO-Inelastic Dynamic Analysis Program. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2003.
13. Ruiz-García J, Miranda E. Performance-based assessment of existing structures accounting for residual displacements. Report No. 153, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2005 (http://blume.stanford.edu/Blume/TechnicalReports.htm)
14. American Institute of Steel Construction, AISC. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.: Chicago, IL, 1997.
15. ACI, ACI-318-02 Building Code and Commentary. American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, 2002.
16. Paulay TA. Critique of the special provisions for seismic design of the building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI 318-83). Journal of the American Concrete Institute 1986; 83(2):274-283.
17. Medina R, Krawinkler H. Strength demand issues relevant for the seismic design of moment-resisting frames. Earthquake Spectra 2005; 21(2):415-439.
18. Osterras J, Krawinkler H. Strength and ductility considerations in seismic design. Report No. 90, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engrg Ctr, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1990 (http://blume.stanford.edu/Blume/ TechnicalReports.htm)
19. Fajfar P, Paulay T. Notes on definitions of overstrength factors. Seismic design methodologies for the next generation of codes. Proceedings of the International Workshop. Bled, Slovenia, 1997; 407-409.
20. Calderoni B, Guerzi A, Rinaldi Z. Column overstrength distribution as a parameter for improving the seismic behaviour of steel moment-resisting frames. Proceedings, Behavior of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas: STESSA '97; Kyoto, 1997; 402-409.
21. Teran-Gilmore A. On the use of spectra to establish damage control in regular frames during global predesign. Earthquake Spectra 2004; 20(3):995-1020.
22. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2002; 26(3):701-716.
23. 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, CA, 2002.
24. Miranda E, Aslani H, Taghavi S. Assessment of seismic performance in terms of economic losses. Report PEER 2004/05, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center, 2005; 149-160.
25. Benjamin JR, Cornell CA. Probability, Statistics, and Decision for Civil Engineers. McGraw-Hill Book Company: New York, 1970.
26. Christopoulos C, Filiatrault A, Uang C-M, Folz B. Post-tensioned energy dissipating connections for moment-resisting steel frames. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 2002; 128(9):1120-1120.