Improved seismic hazard model with application to probabilistic seismic demand analysis

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Volumn 36, Issue 14, 2007, Pages 2211-2225

  Bradley, Brendon A ^a   Dhakal, Rajesh P ^a   Cubrinovski, Misko ^a   Mander, John B ^a   MacRae, Greg A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Demand hazard; Performance based earthquake engineering (PBEE); Probabilistic seismic demand analysis (PSDA); Seismic hazard model

Indexed keywords

APPROXIMATION THEORY; EARTHQUAKES; HAZARDS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

DEMAND HAZARD; PERFORMANCE-BASED EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING; PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC DEMAND ANALYSIS; SEISMIC HAZARD MODEL;

SEISMIC RESPONSE;

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING; NUMERICAL MODEL; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; POWER LAW; PROBABILITY; SEISMIC DESIGN; SEISMIC HAZARD;

AUSTRALASIA; NEW ZEALAND;

EID: 35948947917     PISSN: 00988847     EISSN: 10969845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.727     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Esteva L. Criteria for the construction of spectra for seismic design. Third Panamerican Symposium on Structures, Caracas, Venezula, 1967.
2. Esteva L. Bases para la formulación de decisiones de diseño sísmico. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, 1968.
3. Cornell CA. Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1968; 58(5): 1583-1606.
4. Sewell RT, Toro GR, McGuire RK. Impact of ground motion characterisation on conservatism and variability in seismic risk estimates. NUREG/ CR-6467, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 1991.
5. Kennedy RP, Short SA. Basis for seismic provisions of Doe-Std-1020. Ucrl-Cr-111478 and Bnl-52418. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Brookhaven National Laboratory, 1994.
6. Cornell CA. Reliability-based earthquake-resistant design - the future. Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, 1996.
7. Shome N, Cornell CA. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. Report No. RMS-35, RMS Program, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1999.
8. Jalayer F. Direct probabilistic seismic analysis: implementing non-linear dynamic assessments. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, U.S.A., 2003.
9. Mander JB, Dhakal RP, Mashiko N, Solberg KM. Incremental dynamic analysis applied to seismic financial risk assessment of bridges. Engineering Structures, in press. DOI: 10.1016 /j.engstrut.2006.12.015
10. Lee TH, Mosalam K. Probabilistic seismic evaluation of reinforced concrete structural components and systems. PEER Report No. 2006 /04, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, U.S.A., http:/ /peer.berkeley.edu
11. Kunnath SK, Larson L, Miranda E. Modelling considerations in probabilistic performance-based seismic evaluation: case study of the 1-880 viaduct. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006; 35(1):57-75.
12. Kramer SL. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2006; 137-138.
13. Kulkarni RB, Youngs RR, Coppersmith KJ. Assessment of confidence intervals for results of seismic hazard analysis. Proceedings of the Eighth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. 1. San Francisco, 1984; 263-270.
14. Bommer JJ, Scherbaurn F. Bungum H, Cotton F, Sabetta F, Abrahamson NA. On the use of logic trees for ground-motion prediction equations in seismic hazard assessment. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2005; 95(2):377-389.
15. Stirling MW, McVerry GH, Berryman KR. A new seismic hazard model for New Zealand. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2002; 92(5):1878-1903.
16. Standards New Zealand. NZS 3101: Part 1: 1995: Concrete Structures Standard, Standards New Zealand, Wellington, 1995.
17. Carr AJ. Ruaumoko: Inelastic Dynamic Computer Program. Computer Program Library, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2004.
18. Otani S. SAKE, a computer program for inelastic response of R/C frames to earthquakes. Report UILU-Eng-74-2029, Civil Engineering Studies, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1974.
19. Dhakal RP, Mander JB, Mashiko N. Bidirectional pseudodynamic tests of bridge piers designed to different standards. Journal of Bridge Engineering (ASCE) 2007; 12(3):284-295.
20. Solberg KM. Experimental and analytical investigations into the application of damage avoidance design. Master of Engineering Thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2007.
21. Aslani H. Probabilistic earthquake loss estimation and loss disaggregation in buildings. Ph.D. Thesis, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Centre, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2005; 382.
22. Luco N, Cornell CA. Seismic drift demands for two SMRF structures with brittle connections. Structural Engineering World Wide. Elsevier: Oxford, England, 1998, Paper T158-3.
23. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Applied incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Spectra 2004; 20(2):523-553.
24. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2002; 31(3):491-514.
25. 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, 2000.
26. Bradley BA, Dhaka] RP, Mander JB. Parametric structure specific seismic loss estimation. Fourth International Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 2007; 45-52, Keynote lecture.
27. Deierlein GG, Krawinkler H, Cornell CA. A framework for performance-based earthquake engineering. Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2003.