Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Volumn 36, Issue 13, 2007, Pages 1837-1860

  Tothong, Polsak ^a,c   Luco, Nicolas ^b  

^a Stanford University   (United States)

^b AIR Worldwide Corporation   (United States)

^c U S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY   (United States)

Author keywords

Ground motion intensity measure (IM); Ground motion record selection and scaling; Inelastic spectral displacement (Sdi); Probabilistic seismic demand analysis (PSDA); Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA); Structural response (drift) hazard curves

Indexed keywords

EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS; RISK ANALYSIS; SEISMIC RESPONSE; SPECTRUM ANALYSIS; STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS; VIBRATIONS (MECHANICAL);

GROUND MOTION INTENSITY MEASURE; INELASTIC SPECTRAL DISPLACEMENT; PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC DEMAND ANALYSIS; PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS;

SEISMIC DESIGN;

DISPLACEMENT; EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING; EARTHQUAKE INTENSITY; GROUND MOTION; PROBABILITY; SEISMIC HAZARD; STRUCTURAL RESPONSE; VIBRATION;

EID: 34948870546     PISSN: 00988847     EISSN: 10969845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.696     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Shome N. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1999; 320. http://www.stanford.edu/group/rms/ (accessed 05/31/2006).
2. 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; 260pp. http://www.stanford.edu/group/rms/ (accessed 05/31/ 2006).
3. Cornell CA. Calculating building seismic performance reliability: a basis for multi-level design norms. Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 2122, Acapulco, Mexico, 1996; 8pp.
4. Cornell CA, Krawinkler H. Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center News 2000; 3(2):4pp. http://peer.berkeley.edu/news/2000spring/index.html (accessed 05/09/ 2006).
5. Younan A, Banon H, Marshall P, Crouse CB, Cornell CA. An overview of the ISO seismic guidelines. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, 2001.
6. FEMA-355. State of the Art Report on Systems Performance of Steel Moment Frames Subject to Earthquake Ground Shaking. SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, CA, 2000.
7. Cornell CA. Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1968; 58(5): 1583-1606.
8. Frankel AD, Mueller CS, Barnhard TP, Leyendecker EV, Wesson RL, Harmsen SC, Klein FW, Perkins DM, Dickman NC, Hanson SL, Hopper MG. USGS national seismic hazard maps. Earthquake Spectra 2000; 16(1): 1-19.
9. Luco N, Cornell CA. Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthquake Spectra 2007; 23(2):357-392.
10. Luco N, Bazzurro P. Effects of Earthquake Record Scaling on Nonlinear Structural Response. Report for Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center, Lifelines Program Project 1G00 Addenda, 2004; 64pp. http://peer.berkeley.edu/lifelines/LL-CEC/reports/final_reports/ 1G00-FR.pdf (accessed 07/30/2006).
11. Baker JW, Cornell CA. A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2005; 34(10):1193-1217.
12. Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ. Empirical response spectral attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes. Seismological Research Letters 1997; 68(1):94-127.
13. Luco N, Manuel L, Baldava S, Bazzurro P. Correlation of damage of steel moment-resisting frames to a vector-valued set of ground motion parameter. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability (ICOSSAR05), Rome, Italy, 2005; 8pp.
14. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Investigating the influence of elastic spectral shape on the limit-state capacities of a 9-storey building through IDA. Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 1463, Vancouver, BC Canada, 2004.
15. Baker JW, Cornell CA. Vector-valued ground motion intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand analysis. Report No. 150, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2005; 321. http://blume.stanford.edu/Blume/TRList.htm (accessed 05/31/ 2006).
16. Bazzurro P, Cornell CA. Vector-valued probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (VPSHA). Proceedings of the 7th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 61, Boston, MA, 2002; 10pp.
17. Tothong P, Cornell CA. An empirical ground motion attenuation relation for inelastic spectral displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2006; 96(6):2146-2164.
18. Tothong P, Cornell CA. 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, CA, 2007. http://blume.stanford.edu/Blume/TRList.htm
19. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2002; 31(3):491-514.
20. Benjamin JR, Cornell CA. Probability, Statistics, and Decision for Civil Engineers. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1970; 684pp.
21. Ibarra LF, Krawinkler H. Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations. Report No. 152, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2005; 324pp. http://blume.stanford.edu/Blume/TRList.htm (accessed 05/31/2006).
22. Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H. Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2005; 34(12):1489-1511.
23. Medina RA, Krawinkler H. Seismic demands for nondeteriorating frame structures and their dependence on ground motions. Report No. 144, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2003; 347pp. http://blume.stanford.edu/Blume/TRList.htm (accessed 05/31/2006).
24. Fajfar P. A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Earthquake Spectra 2000; 16(3): 573-592.
25. Goel RK, Chopra AK. Evaluation of modal and FEMA pushover analyses: SAC buildings. Earthquake Spectra 2004; 20(1):225-254.
26. Haselton CB, Baker JW. Ground motion intensity measures for collapse capacity prediction: choice of optimal spectral period and effect of spectral shape. Proceedings of the 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, CA, 2006; 10pp.
27. Baker JW, Cornell CA. Which spectral acceleration are you using? Earthquake Spectra 2006; 22(2):293-312.
28. Collins KR, Wen YK, Foutch DA. Dual-level seismic design: a reliability-based methodology. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1996; 25(12):1433-1467.
29. Wen YK. Reliability and performance based design. The 8th ASCE Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability, PMC2000-YKW, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, IN, 2000; 21pp.
30. Baker JW, Cornell CA. Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006; 35(9):1077-1095. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.571
31. McCullagh P, Nelder JA. Generalized Linear Models (2nd edn). Chapman & Hall/CRC: London/Boca Raton, FL, 1990; 532pp.
32. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman & Hall/CRC: New York, 1993; 436pp.
33. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J. The Elements of Statistical Learning, vol. 536 (2nd edn). Springer: Berlin, 2001; 536pp.
34. Tothong P, Cornell CA, Baker JW. Explicit directivity-pulse inclusion in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Earthquake Spectra 2007, in press.
35. Alavi B, Krawinkler H. Effects of near-field ground motion on frame structures. Report No. 138, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2001; 301pp. http://blume.stanford.edu/Blume/ TRList.htm (accessed 05/31/2006).
36. Fu Q. Modeling and prediction of fault-normal near-field ground motions and structural response. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2005; 231pp.
37. Mavroeidis GP, Dong G, Papageorgiou AS. Near-fault ground motions, and the response of elastic and inelastic single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2004; 33(9): 1023-1049.
38. Bazzurro P, Luco N. Damage potential of near-source ground motion records. Proceedings of the 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, CA, 2006; 10pp.
39. Mori Y, Yamanaka T, Luco N, Nakashima M, Cornell CA. Predictors of seismic demand of SMRF buildings considering post-elastic mode shape. Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 632, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2004.
40. Chopra AK. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering (2nd edn). Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2001; 844pp.