Probabilistic structural response assessment using vector-valued intensity measures

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Volumn 36, Issue 13, 2007, Pages 1861-1883

  Baker, Jack W ^a,b  

^a Stanford University   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Ground motions; Intensity measure (IM); Probabilistic seismic demand assessment (PSDA); Vector valued intensity measures

Indexed keywords

ESTIMATION; PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SEISMIC RESPONSE; STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS;

GROUND MOTIONS; INTENSITY MEASURE; PROBABILISTICS SEISMIC DEMAND ASSESSMENT;

STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS;

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS; EARTHQUAKE INTENSITY; ESTIMATION METHOD; GROUND MOTION; PROBABILITY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SEISMIC HAZARD; STRUCTURAL RESPONSE; VECTOR;

EID: 35748930848     PISSN: 00988847     EISSN: 10969845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.700     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. Bazzurro P, Cornell CA. Seismic hazard analysis of nonlinear structures I: methodology. Journal of Structural Engineering 1994; 120:3320-3344.
2. Cornell CA, Krawinkler H. Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center News, vol. 3, 2000. http://peer.berkeley.edu/news/2000spring/performance.html
3. Deierlein GG. Overview of a comprehensive framework for earthquake performance assessment. PEER 2004/05, In International Workshop on Performance-Based Seismic Design Concepts and Implementation, Bled, Slovenia, Fajfar P, Krawinkler H (eds), 2004; 12. http://peer.berkeley.edu/Products/PEERReports/reports-2004/reports04.html
4. Han SW, Wen YK. Method of reliability-based seismic design I: equivalent nonlinear systems. Journal of Structural Engineering 1997; 123:256-263.
5. Bazzurro P, Cornell CA, Shome N, Carballo JE. Three proposals for characterizing Mdof nonlinear seismic response. Journal of Structural Engineering 1998; 124:1281-1289.
6. Jalayer F, Beck JL, Porter KA. Effects of ground motion uncertainty on predicting the response of an existing Rc frame structure. Thirteenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, 2004; 10.
7. Kramer SL. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1996; 653.
8. McGuire RK. Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute: Berkeley, 2004; 240.
9. Krawinkler H (ed.). In Van Nuys Hotel Building Testbed Report: Exercising Seismic Performance Assessment. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. University of California at Berkeley: Berkeley, CA, 2004.
10. Jalayer F. Direct probabilistic seismic analysis: implementing non-linear dynamic assessments. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2003; 244. http://www.stanford.edu/group/rms/ (accessed 14/3/05).
11. Shome N, Cornell CA. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. RMS-35, RMS Program, Stanford, CA, 1999; 320. http://www.stanford.edu/group/rms/
12. Bazzurro P, Cornell CA. Vector-valued probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Seventh U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Boston, MA, 2002; 10.
13. Benjamin JR, Cornell CA. Probability, Statistics, and Decision for Civil Engineers. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1970; 684.
14. Luco N, Cornell CA. Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthquake Spectra 2007, in press.
15. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Developing efficient scalar and vector intensity measures for IDA capacity estimation by incorporating elastic spectral shape information. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2005; 34:1573-1600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.496
16. Baker JW, Cornell CA. Choice of a vector of ground motion intensity measures for seismic demand hazard analysis. In Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, 2004; 15.
17. Luco N, Manuel L, Baldava S, Bazzurro P. Correlation of damage of steel moment-resisting frames to a vector-valued set of ground motion parameters. Ninth International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability, Rome, Italy, 2005; 8.
18. Rice JA. Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis (2nd edn). Duxbury Press: Belmont, CA, 1995; xx, 602, A49.
19. Lehmann EL, D'Abrera HJM. Nonparametrics: Statistical Methods Based on Ranks (Rev. 1st edn). Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998; 463.
20. Neter J, Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Wasserman W. Applied Linear Statistical Models (4th edn). McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA, 1996; 1408.
21. Baker JW, Cornell CA. Vector-valued ground motion intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand analysis. Report #150, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford, CA, 2005; 321. http://blume.stanford.edu/Blume/Publications.htm
22. Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO, Foutch DA. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. Journal of Structural Engineering 2002; 128:526-533.
23. FEMA 350. Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. SAC Joint Venture. Prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2000.
24. FEMA 351. Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. SAC Joint Venture. Prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2000.
25. Aslani H. Probabilistic earthquake loss estimation and loss deaggregation in buildings. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2005.
26. Mackie K, Stojadinovic B. Seismic demands for performance-based design of bridges. PEER 2003-16, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 2003; 150.
27. Shome N, Cornell CA. Structural seismic demand analysis: consideration of 'Collapse'. Eighth ASCE Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, IN, 2007; 7.
28. Bazzurro P, Luco N. Do scaled and spectrum-matched near-source records produce biased nonlinear structural responses? Proceedings of 8th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, CA, 2006.
29. Shome N, Cornell CA, Bazzurro P, Carballo JE. Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses. Earthquake Spectra 1998; 14:469-500.
30. Iervolino I, Cornell CA. Record selection for nonlinear seismic analysis of structures. Earthquake Spectra 2005; 21:685-713. http://Iink.aip.org/link/?EQS/21/685/1
31. Deutsch CV, Journel AG. Gslib Geostatistical Software Library and User's Guide (Version 2.0. edn). Oxford University Press: New York, 1997; 369.
32. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Applied incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Spectra 2004; 20:523-553.
33. Kennedy RP, Short SA, Merz KL, Tokarz FJ, Idriss IM, Power MS, Sadigh K. Engineering characterization of ground motion - task I: effects of characteristics of free-field motion on structural response. NUREG/ CR-3805, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 1984.
34. Bazzurro P, Cornell CA. Seismic hazard analysis of nonlinear structures I: applications. Journal of Structural Engineering 1994; 120:3345-3365.
35. Baker JW, Cornell CA. Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006; 35:1077-1095.
36. Baker JW, Cornell CA. A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2005; 34:1193-1217.
37. Bazzurro P. Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University: Stanford, CA, 1998; 329. http://www.stanford.edu/group/rms/
38. Abrahamson NA. Nonstationary spectral matching program RSPMATCH. PG&E Internal Report, 1993.
39. Silva WJ. WES RASCAL code for synthesizing earthquake ground motions. US Army Corps of Engineers State-of-the-Art for Assessing Earthquake Hazards in the United States Report 24, Paper S-73-1. 1987.
40. McGuire RK, Silva WJ, Costantino CJ. Technical basis for revision of regulatory guidance on design ground motions hazard- and risk-consistent ground motion spectra guidelines. NUREG/CR-6728, Division of Engineering Technology Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 2001.
41. Carballo JE, Cornell CA. Input to nonlinear structural analysis: modification of available accelerograms for different source and site characteristics. Sixth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, WA, 1998; 13.
42. Bellman RE. Adaptive Control Processes: A Guided Tour. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 1961; 255.
43. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman JH. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. Springer: New York, 2001; 533.
44. Stewart JP, Chiou S-J, Bray JD, Graves RW, Somerville PG, Abrahamson NA. Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design. PEER 2001-09, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 2001; 229.
45. Goulet C, Haselton C, Mitrani-Reiser J, Beck JL, Deierlein GG, Porter KA, Stewart JP. Performance of a code-conforming reinforced-concrete frame building - Part I: ground motion selection and structural collapse simulation. In Proceedings of the 8th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, California, 2006; 10.