Practice-oriented estimation of the seismic demand hazard using ground motions at few intensity levels

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Volumn 42, Issue 14, 2013, Pages 2167-2185

  Bradley, Brendon A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Intensity based assessment; Multi objective seismic performance assessment; Seismic demand hazard

Indexed keywords

BRIDGES; ESTIMATION; HAZARDS; SEISMIC RESPONSE; SEISMIC WAVES;

ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA; EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY; INTENSITY-BASED ASSESSMENT; PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN; SEISMIC DEMANDS; SEISMIC DESIGN CODE; SEISMIC PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; SEISMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS;

SEISMIC DESIGN;

ACCURACY ASSESSMENT; EARTHQUAKE INTENSITY; FOUNDATION; GROUND MOTION; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; RESPONSE ANALYSIS; SEISMIC DESIGN; SEISMIC RESPONSE; SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION;

EID: 84885474258     PISSN: 00988847     EISSN: 10969845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2319     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Kramer SL. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1996; 653.
2. McGuire RK. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: early history. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2008; 37:329-338. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.765.
3. Bommer JJ. Deterministic vs. probabilistic seismic hazard assessment: an exaggerated and obstructive dichotomy. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2002; 6(1 supp 1):43-73.
4. Field EH, Gupta N, Gupta V, Blanpied M, Maechling P, Jordan TH. Hazard calculations for the WGCEP-2002 forecast using OpenSHA and distributed object technologies. Seismological Research Letters 2005; 76:161-167.
5. ASCE/SEI 7-05. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE Standard No. 007-05, 2006; 388pp.
6. CEN. Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, Final Draft prEN 1998, European Committee for Standardization, 2003; pp.
7. FEMA-368. NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures, 2000 Edition. Part 1: Provisions, Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2001; pp.
8. NZS 1170.5. Structural design actions, Part 5: earthquake actions - New Zealand. Standards New Zealand: Wellington, New Zealand, 2004; 82.
9. Bradley BA. A generalized conditional intensity measure approach and holistic ground motion selection. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2010; 39(12):1321-1342. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.995.
10. Baker JW, Cornell CA. Spectral shape, record selection and epsilon. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006; 35(9):1077-1095.
11. Bradley BA. A comparison of intensity-based distributions and the seismic demand hazard for seismic performance assessment. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2013 (submitted).
12. Bradley BA. The seismic demand hazard and importance of the conditioning intensity measure. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2012; 41(11):1417-1437. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2221.
13. NIST. Selecting and scaling earthquake ground motions for performing response-history analyses. NIST GCR 11-917-15, 2011; pp. 256.
14. Shome N, Cornell CA. Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis of Nonlinear Structures, Stanford University, 1999; pp. 357.
15. Tothong P, Luco N. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36(13):1837-1860.
16. Jalayer F, Beck JL. Effects of two alternative representation of ground-motion uncertainty on probabilistic seismic demand assessment of structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.745.
17. Bazzurro P. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis, Stanford University, 1998; 329pp.
18. Kramer SL, Mitchell RA. Ground motion intensity measures for liquefaction hazard evaluation. Earthquake Spectra 2006; 22(2):413-438.
19. Bradley BA, Dhakal RP, Cubrinovski M, MacRae GA. Prediction of spatially distributed seismic demands in structures: from structural response to loss estimation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2009; 39(6):591-613. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.955.
20. Rathje EM, Saygili G. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for the sliding displacement of slopes: scalar and vector approaches. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 2008; 134(6):804-814. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:6(804).
21. Aslani H, Miranda E. Probability-based seismic response analysis. Engineering Structures 2005; 27(8):1151-1163.
22. Krawinkler H, Miranda E. Performance-based Earthquake Engineering. Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology to Performance-based Engineering, Bozorgnia Y, Bertero VV (eds). CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2004.
23. Zareian F, Krawinkler H. Assessment of probability of collapse and design for collapse safety. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36(13):1901-1914.
24. Mackie KR, Stojadinovic B. Performance-based seismic bridge design for damage and loss limit states. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36(13):1953-1971. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.699.
25. Baker JW, Cornell CA. Uncertainty Specification and Propagation for Loss Estimation Using FOSM Method, 2003; pp. 100.
26. Bradley BA, Dhakal RP. Error estimation of closed-form solution for annual rate of structural collapse. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2008; 37(15):1721-1737.
27. Bradley BA, Lee DS. Accuracy of approximate methods of uncertainty propagation in loss estimation. Structural Safety 2009; 32(1):13-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2009.04.001.
28. Dolšek M, Fajfar P. Simplified probabilistic seismic performance assessment of plan-asymmetric buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36(13):2021-2041. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.697.
29. Fajfar P, Dolšek M. A practice-oriented estimation of the failure probability of building structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2012; 41(3):531-547. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.1143.
30. Eads L, Miranda E, Krawinkler H, Lignos DG. An efficient method for estimating the collapse risk of structures in seismic regions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2013; 42(1):25-41. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2191.
31. Dolšek M. Simplified method for seismic risk assessment of buildings with consideration of aleatory and epistemic uncertainty. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 2012; 8(10):939-953. DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2011.574813.
32. Fragiadakis M, Vamvatsikos D. Fast performance uncertainty estimation via pushover and approximate IDA. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2010; 39(6):683-703. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.965.
33. Bradley BA, Lee DS, Broughton R, Price C. Efficient evaluation of performance-based earthquake engineering equations. Structural Safety 2009; 31(1):65-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.03.003.
34. Bradley BA. A ground motion selection algorithm based on the generalized conditional intensity measure approach. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2012; 40(0):48-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.04.007.
35. Aslani H, Miranda E. Fragility assessment of slab-column connections in existing non-ductile reinforced concrete buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2005; 9(6):777-804.
36. Bradley BA, Dhakal RP, Cubrinovski M, MacRae GA. Prediction of spatially distributed seismic demands in structures: ground motion and structural response. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2009; 39(5):501-520. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.954.
37. Ramirez CM, Miranda E. Building-specific loss estimation methods and tools for simplified performance-based earthquake engineering, Stanford University, Blume Centre report number 171, 2009; pp. 370.
38. Bowen H, Cubrinovski M. Effective stress analysis of piles in liquefiable soil: a case study of a bridge foundation. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 2008; 41(4):247-262.
39. Bradley BA, Cubrinovski M, Dhakal RP, MacRae GA. Probabilistic seismic performance and loss assessment of a bridge-foundation-soil system. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2009; 30(5):395-411. DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.12.012.
40. Shome N, Cornell CA, Bazzurro P, Carballo JE. Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses. Earthquake Spectra 1998; 14(3):469-500.
41. 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(4):526-533.
42. FEMA-350. Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame buildings, SAC Joint Venture, 2000; pp.
43. SEAOC. Vision 2000: a framework for performance-based design, Structural Engineers Association of California, 1995; pp.
44. ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, Volume 1, 1996; pp.