An empirical ground-motion attenuation relation for inelastic spectral displacement

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

Volumn 96, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 2146-2164

  Tothong, Polsak ^a   Cornell, C Allin ^a  

^a Stanford University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EARTHQUAKES; ESTIMATION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROBABILITY; STATISTICAL METHODS;

GROUND-MOTION; PREDICTION MODEL; PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC-DEMAND ANALYSES;

SEISMOLOGY;

EARTHQUAKE INTENSITY; EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION; EARTHQUAKE RUPTURE; GROUND MOTION; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; MOMENT TENSOR; SEISMIC ATTENUATION; SEISMIC DESIGN; SEISMIC HAZARD; SOFTWARE;

EID: 33846058204     PISSN: 00371106     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1785/0120060018     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Abrahamson, N. A., and W. J. Silva (1997). Empirical response spectral attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes, Seism. Res. Lett. 68, 94-127.
2. Akkar, S., and J. J. Bommer (2006). Influence of long-period filter cut-off on elastic spectral displacements, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 35, 1145-1165.
3. Baker, J. W., and C. A. Cornell (2005). A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 34, 1193-1217.
4. Bates, D. M., and D. G. Watts (1988). Nonlinear Regression Analysis and Its Applications, Wiley, New York, 365 pp.
5. Bazzurro, P. (1998). Probabilistic seismic demand analysis, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 329 pp., www.stanford.edu/group/rms/ (last accessed 31 May 2006).
6. Bazzurro, P., and N. Luco (2004). Parameterization of non-stationary acceleration time histories, PEER Report 2004, University of California, Berkeley, California, http://peer.berkeley.edu/lifelines/LL-CEC/reports/ finalreports/1G00-FRpt2.pdf (last accessed 31 May 2006).
7. Bazzurro, P., B. Sjoberg, N. Luco, W. Silva, and R. Darragh (2004). Effects of strong motion processing procedures on time histories, elastic and inelastic spectra, in Workshop on Strong-Motion Record Processing, The Consortium of Organizations for Strong-Motion Observation Systems (COSMOS), Richmond, California, 26-27 May 2004, 39 pp.
8. Boore, D. M. (2005). Erratum: equations for estimating horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from Western North American earthquakes: a summary of recent work, Seism. Res. Lett. 76, 368-369.
9. Boore, D. M., and J. J. Bommer (2005). Processing of strong-motion accelerograms: needs, options and consequences, Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 25, 93-115.
10. Bozorgnia, Y., M. M. Hachem, and K. W. Campbell (2006). Attenuation of inelastic and damage spectra, in Proceedings of the 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, California, 18-22 April 2006, 11 pp.
11. Chakraborti, A., and V. K. Gupta (2005). Scaling of strength reduction factors for degrading elasto-plastic oscillators, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 34, 189-206.
12. Chintanapakdee, C., and A. K. Chopra (2003). Evaluation of the modal pushover analysis procedure using vertically "regular" and irregular generic frames, Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report No. EERC-2003/03, University of California, Berkeley, California.
13. Chopra, A. K. (2001). Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, Second Ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 844 pp.
14. Chopra, A. K., and C. Chintanapakdee (2004). Inelastic deformation ratios for design and evaluation of structures: single-degree-of-freedom bilinear systems, J. Struct. Eng. 130, 1309-1319.
15. Chopra, A. K., and R. K. Goel (2002). A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 31, 561-582.
16. Collins, K. R., Y. Wen, and D. A. Foutch (1996). Dual-level seismic design: a reliability-based methodology, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 25, 1433-1467.
17. Cornell, C. A. (1968). Engineering seismic risk analysis, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 58, 1583-1606.
18. Cornell, C. A., and H. Krawinkler (2000). Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment, PEER Center News 3, http://peer.berkeley.edu/news/2000spring/index.html (last accessed 31 May 2006).
19. Efron, B., and R. J. Tibshirani (1993). An Introduction to the Bootstrap, Chapman & Hall/CRC, New York, 436 pp.
20. Fajfar, P. (2000). A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design, Earthquake Spectra 16, 573-592.
21. Farrow, K. T., and Y. C. Kurama (2004). SDOF displacement ductility demands based on smooth ground motion response spectra, Eng. Struct. 26, 1713-1733.
22. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 356.(2000). Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, California.
23. Foutch, D. A., and S. Shi (1998). Effects of hysteresis type on the seismic response of buildings, in Proceedings of the 6th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, Washington, 12 pp.
24. Frankel, A. D., C. Mueller, T. Barnhard, D. Perkins, E. V. Leyendecker, N. Dickman, S. Hanson, and M. Hopper (1996). National seismic-hazard maps: documentation June 1996, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rept. 96-532, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/publications/hazmapsdoc/ Junedoc.pdf (last accessed 31 May 2006).
25. Hastie, T., R. Tibshirani, and J. Friedman (2001). The Elements of Statistical Learning, Springer-Verlag, New York, 536 pp.
26. Jalayer, F. (2003). Direct probabilistic seismic analysis: implementing non-linear dynamic assessments, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 244 pp., www.stanford.edu/group/rms/ (last accessed 31 May 2006).
27. Joyner, W. B., and D. M. Boore (1982). Prediction of earthquake response spectra, U.S. Geol. Surv., Menlo Park, California.
28. Kennedy, R. P., S. A. Short, K. L. Merz, F. J. Tokarz, I. M. Idriss, M. S. Power, and K. Sadigh (1984). Engineering characterization of ground motion - Task I: Effects of characteristics of free-field motion on structural response, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-3905, Division of Engineering Technology, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, D.C.
29. Lawson, R. S. (1996). Site-dependent inelastic seismic demands, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 224 pp.
30. Luco, N. (2002). Probabilistic seismic demand analysis, SMRF connection fractures, and near-source effects, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 260 pp., www.stanford.edu/group/rms/ (last accessed 31 May 2006).
31. Luco, N., and C. A. Cornell (2006). Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions, Earthquake Spectra (in press).
32. Luco, N., L. Manuel, S. Baldava, and P. Bazzurro (2005). Correlation of damage of steel moment-resisting frames to a vector-valued set of ground motion parameter, in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability (ICOSSAR05), Rome, Italy, 19-23 June 2005, 8 pp.
33. McGuire, R. K., and C. A. Cornell (1974). Seismic structural response risk analysis, incorporating peak response regressions on earthquake magnitude and distance, Report No. 74-51, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
34. Miranda, E. (2000). Inelastic displacement ratios for structures on firm sites, J. Struct. Eng. 126, 1150-1159.
35. Miranda, E. (2001). Estimation of inelastic deformation demands of SDOF systems, J. Struct. Eng. 127, 1005-1012.
36. Miranda, E., and V. V. Bertero, (1994). Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant design, Earthquake Spectra 10, 357-379.
37. Moehle, J. P., and G. G. Deierlein (2004). A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering, in Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, 1-6 August 2004, 13 pp.
38. Mori, Y., T. Yamanaka, N. Luco, M. Nakashima, and C. A. Cornell (2004). Predictors of seismic demand of SMRF buildings considering post-elastic mode shape, in Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, 1-6 August 2004,15 pp.
39. Nassar, A. A., and H. Krawinkler (1991). Seismic demands for SDOF and MDOF systems, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Report No. 95, Stanford University, Stanford, California, http://blume.stanford.edu/ Blume/TRList.htm (last accessed 31 May 2006).
40. Next Generation Attenuation of Ground Motions (NGA) Project (2005). http://peer.berkeley.edu/nga/ (last accessed 31 May 2006).
41. Qi, X., and J. P. Moehle (1991). Displacement design approach for reinforced concrete structures subjected to earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report No. EERC 91/02, University of California, Berkeley, California.
42. Riddell, R., J. E. Garcia, and E. Garces (2002). Inelastic deformation response of SDOF systems subjected to earthquakes, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 31, 515-538.
43. Ruiz-García, J., and E. Miranda (2003). Inelastic displacement ratios for evaluation of existing structures, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 32, 1237-1258.
44. Ruiz-García, J., and E. Miranda (2005). Performance-based assessment of existing structures accounting for residual displacements, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Report No. 153, Stanford University, Stanford, California, http://blume.stanford.edu/Blume/ TRList.htm (last accessed 31 May 2006).
45. Sewell, R. T. (1989). Damage effectiveness of earthquake ground motion: characterizations based on the performance of structures and equipment, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 619 pp., www.stanford.edu/ group/rms/ (last accessed 31 May 2006).
46. Shome, N. (1999). Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 320 pp., www.stanford.edu/group/rms/ (last accessed 31 May 2006).
47. Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) (1999). Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California.
48. Tothong, P., and C. A. Cornell (2006). Improved probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures, attenuation relationships, and near-fault effects, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, http://blume.stanford.edu/Blume/TRList.htm.
49. Tothong, P., and N. Luco (2006). Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. (in press).
50. Vamvatsikos, D. (2002). Seismic performance, capacity and reliability of structures as seen through incremental dynamic analysis, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 152 pp., www.stanford.edu/group/rms/ (last accessed 31 May 2006).
51. Vamvatsikos, D., and C. A. Cornell (2002). Practical estimation of the seismic demand and capacity of oscillators with multi-linear static pushovers through incremental dynamic analysis, in Proceedings of the 7th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Boston, Massachusetts, 21-25 July 2002, 10 pp.
52. Veletsos, A. S., and N. M. Newmark (1960). Effect of inelastic behavior on the response of simple systems to earthquake motions, in Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 895-912.
53. Veletsos, A. S., N. M. Newmark, and C. V. Chepalati (1965). Deformation spectra for elastic and elastoplastic systems subjected to ground shock and earthquake motion, in Proceeding of the 3rd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Wellington, New Zealand, 663-682.