Prediction of the median IDA curve by employing a limited number of ground motion records

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Volumn 36, Issue 15, 2007, Pages 2401-2421

  Azarbakht, Alireza ^a   Dolšek, Matjaž ^b  

^a INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND SEISMOLOGY IIEES   (Iran)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA   (Slovenia)

Author keywords

Genetic algorithm; Ground motion selection; Incremental dynamic analysis; Optimization; Performance based earthquake engineering; Record selection

Indexed keywords

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC ALGORITHMS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; OPTIMIZATION; SEISMIC RESPONSE;

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING; GROUND MOTION SELECTION; INCREMENTAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS;

EARTHQUAKES;

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS; EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING; GENETIC ALGORITHM; GROUND MOTION; OPTIMIZATION; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION;

EID: 36749034308     PISSN: 00988847     EISSN: 10969845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.740     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2002; 31(3):491-514.
2. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Direct estimation of the seismic demand and capacity of multi-degree-of-freedom systems through incremental dynamic analysis of single degree of freedom approximation. Journal of Structural Engineering 2005; 131(4):589-599.
3. Han SW, Chopra AK. Approximate incremental dynamic analysis using the modal pushover analysis procedure. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006; 35:1853-1873.
4. Dolšek M, Fajfar P. Simplified non-linear seismic analysis of infilled reinforced concrete frames. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2005; 34(1):49-66.
5. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Direct estimation of the seismic demand and capacity of oscillators with multi-linear static pushovers through IDA. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006; 35(9):1097-1117.
6. Shome N, Cornell CA. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of non-linear structures. Report No. RMS-35, RMS Program, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1999.
7. Carballo JE, Cornell CA. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis: spectrum matching and design. Report No. RMS-41, RMS Program, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2000.
8. Mehanny SS, Deierlein GG. Modeling, Modeling and assessment of seismic performance of composite frames with reinforced concrete columns and steel beams. Report No. 136, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2000.
9. Cordova PP, Deierlein GG, Mehanny SS, Cornell CA. Development of a two-parameter seismic intensity measure and probabilistic assessment procedure. Proceedings of the 2nd U.S. Japan Workshop on Performance-based Earthquake Engineering for Reinforced Concrete Building Structures, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 2000; 187-206.
10. 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(13):1573-1600.
11. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Applied incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Spectra 2004; 20(2):523-553.
12. Tothong P, Luco N. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.696.
13. NUREG/CR-6728, Technical Basis for Revision of Regulatory Guidance on Design Ground Motions: Hazard- and Risk-consistent Ground Motion Spectra Guidelines. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2001.
14. Iervolino I, Cornell CA. Record selection for nonlinear seismic analysis of structures. Earthquake Spectra 2005; 21(3):685-713.
15. Dhakal RP, Mander JB, Mashiko N. Identification of critical ground motions for seismic performance assessment of structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006; 35(8):989-1008.
16. Holland JH. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control and Artificial Intelligence. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI, U.S.A., 1975.
17. Goldberg DE. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 1989.
18. Kroittmaier J. Optimizing Engineering Designs. McGraw-Hill: London, U.K., 1993.
19. Pezeshk S, Camp CV, Chen D. Design of framed structures by genetic optimization. Journal of Structural Engineering 2000; 126(3):382-388.
20. Naeim F, Alimoradi A, Pezeshk S. Selection and scaling of ground motion earthquakes for structural design using genetic algorithms. Earthquake Spectra 2004; 20(2):413-426.
21. MATLAB, The Language of Technical Computing, version 7.0.019920(R14). http://mathworks.com (6 May 2004).
22. Negro P, Mola E, Molina FJ, Magonette GE. Full-scale testing of a torsionally unbalanced three-storey non-seismic RC frame. Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, 2004; 968.
23. Fajfar P, Dolšek M, Marušic D, Stratan A. Pre- and post-test mathematical modeling of a plan-asymmetric reinforced concrete frame building. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006; 35(11):1359-1379.
24. PEER. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 1999. Available from: http://opensees.berkeley.edu/.
25. PEER. Strong Motion Database. Available from: http:// peer.Berkeley.edu/NGA.
26. FEMA. The 2000 NEHRP recommended provisions for new buildings and other structures. Report No. FEMA-368, SAC Joint Venture, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2002.
27. Fajfar P. Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1999; 28(9):979-993.