Probabilistic estimation of residual drift demands for seismic assessment of multi-story framed buildings

Engineering Structures

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 11-20

  Ruiz García, Jorge ^a   Miranda, Eduardo ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD MICHOACANA DE SAN NICOLÁS DE HIDALGO   (Mexico)

^b Stanford University   (United States)

Author keywords

Inelastic intensity measure; Residual drift demands; Residual drift hazard curve; Seismic assessment

Indexed keywords

ALEATORY UNCERTAINTY; DRIFT DEMANDS; FRAGILITY CURVES; FUNCTIONAL MODEL; GROUND MOTIONS; HAZARD CURVES; INELASTIC DISPLACEMENT; INTENSITY MEASURE; LATERAL LOAD RESISTING SYSTEMS; MULTISTORY BUILDING; PROBABILISTIC APPROACHES; PROBABILISTIC ESTIMATION; SEISMIC ASSESSMENT; SEISMIC EXCITATIONS; SEISMIC HAZARDS; SEISMIC PERFORMANCE;

EARTHQUAKE RESISTANCE; HAZARDS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEISMOLOGY;

FREQUENCY ESTIMATION;

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS; DYNAMIC RESPONSE; EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING; ESTIMATION METHOD; MULTISTOREY BUILDING; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; PROBABILITY; SEISMIC DESIGN; SEISMIC HAZARD; SEISMIC RESPONSE; STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS; STRUCTURAL RESPONSE; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

EID: 70449672387     PISSN: 01410296     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.08.010     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Esteva L. Criteria for construction spectra for seismic design. In: Proc. 3rd pan Am. symp. structures. 1967 [in Spanish]
2. Esteva L. Basis for the formulation of decision in seismic design. Report 182. Mexico city (Mexico): Institute of Engineering, National Autonomous University of Mexico; 1968 [in Spanish]
3. Cornell CA. Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Amer 58 5 (1968) 1583-1606
4. Esteva L., and Ruiz S.E. Seismic failure rate of multistory frames. J Struct Engrg 115 2 (1989) 268-284
5. Bazzurro P., and Cornell C.A. Seismic hazard analysis of nonlinear structures I: Methodology. J Struct Engrg 120 11 (1994) 3320-3344
6. Cornell CA. Calculating building seismic performance reliability: A basis for multi-level design norms. In: Proceedings of the eleventh world conf. on earthquake engineering, Paper No. 2122. 1996
7. Shome N., Cornell C.A., Bazzurro P., and Carvallo J.E. Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear response. Earthq Spectra 14 3 (1998) 469-500
8. Luco N., and Cornell C.A. Effects of connection fractures on SMRF seismic drift demands. J Struct Engrg 126 1 (2000) 127-136
9. Aslani H., and Miranda E. Probabilistic-based seismic response analysis. Eng Struct 27 (2005) 1151-1163
10. Cornell C.A., and Krawinkler H. Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER News 3 2 (2000)
11. Deierlein GG. Overview of a comprehensive framework for performance earthquake assessment. Report PEER 2004/05. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center; 2004. p. 15-26
12. Cornell C.A., Jalayer F., Hamburger R.O., and Foutch D.A. The probabilistic basis for the 2000 SAC/FEMA steel moment frame guidelines. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 128 4 (2002) 526-533
13. MacGuire RK. Seismic hazard and risk analysis. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, MN-10; 2004
14. Bradley B.A., and Dhakal R.P. Error estimation of closed-form solution for annual rate of structural collapse. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37 15 (2008) 1721-1737
15. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Report FEMA 356. Washington, DC, 2000
16. Rosenblueth E., and Meli R. The 1985 Mexico earthquake: Causes and effects in Mexico City. Concrete Internat (ACI) 8 5 (1986) 23-34
17. Okada T, Kabeyasawa T, Nakano T, Maeda M, Nakamura T. Improvement of seismic performance of reinforced concrete school buildings in Japan-Part 1 Damage survey and performance evaluation after the 1995 Hyogo-Ken Nambu earthquake. In: Proceedings of the twelfth world conference on earthquake engineering, Paper 2421. 2000
18. Luco N, Bazzurro P, Cornell CA. Dynamic versus static computation of the residual capacity of a mainshock-damaged building to withstand an aftershock. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth world conference on earthquake engineering, Paper No. 2405. 2004
19. Mackie K, Stojadinovic B. Residual displacement and post-earthquake capacity of highway bridges. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth world conference on earthquake engineering, Paper No. 1550. 2004
20. Pampanin S., Christopoulos C., and Priestley M.J.N. Performance-based seismic response of framed structures including residual deformations. Part II: Multiple-degree-of-freedom systems. J Earthq Eng 1 7 (2003) 119-147
21. Ruiz-García J, Miranda E. Performance-based assessment of existing structures accounting for residual displacements. Report no. 153. Stanford (CA): The John A. Blume Earthquake Engrg Ctr, Stanford Univ.; 2005. http://blume.stanford.edu/Blume/TechnicalReports.htm
22. Ruiz-Garcia J., and Miranda E. Evaluation of residual drift demands in regular multi-story frame buildings for performance-based assessment. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35 13 (2006) 1609-1629
23. Pettinga D., Christopoulos C., Pampanin S., and Priestley M.J.N. Effectiveness of simple approaches in mitigating residual deformations in buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36 12 (2006) 1763-1783
24. Uma SM, Pampanin S, Christopoulos C. A Probabilistic framework for performance-based seismic assessment of structures considering residual deformations. In: 1st. European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology 2006. Paper No. 731
25. Yazgan U, Dazio A. Utilization of residual displacements in the post-earthquake assessment. In: 14th. world conference on earthquake engineering. 2008. Paper 05-01-0445
26. Chopra A.K., and Goel R.K. Building period formulas for estimating seismic displacements. Earthq Spectra 16 2 (2000) 533-536
27. Carr A.J. RUAUMOKO-inelastic dynamic analysis program (2008), Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
28. Medina R, Krawinkler H. Seismic demands for nondeteriorating frame structures and their dependence on ground Motions. Report PEER 2003/13. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center; October, 2003
29. Miranda E, Aslani H, Taghavi S. Assessment of seismic performance in terms of economic losses. Report PEER 2004/05. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center. p. 149-60
30. Luco N., and Cornell C.A. Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthq Spectra 23 2 (2007) 357-392
31. Tothong P., and Cornell C.A. An empirical ground motion attenuation relation for inelastic spectral displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Amer 96 6 (2006) 2146-2164
32. Ruiz-Garcia J., and Miranda E. Probabilistic estimation of maximum inelastic displacement demands for performance-based design. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36 9 (2007) 1235-1254
33. Benjamin J.R., and Cornell C.A. Probability, statistics, and decision for civil engineers (1970), McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York
34. Mackie K, Stojadinovic B. Improving seismic demand models through refined intensity measures. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth world conference on earthquake engineering, Paper No. 1556. 2004
35. Frankel AD, Leyendecker EV. Seismic hazard curves and uniform hazard response spectra for the United States. CD-ROMV3.01, USGS, Denver, CO, 2001
36. Yazgan U, Dazio A. Comparison of different finite-element modeling approaches in terms of estimating the residual displacements of RC structures. In: Proceedings of the eight US national conference on earthquake engineering, Paper No. 309. 2006
37. Dolsek M. Incremental dynamic analysis with consideration of modeling uncertainties. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38 6 (2008) 805-825