A modified response spectrum method based on uniform probability spectrum
- 219 Downloads
The traditional response spectrum method (RSM) based on the mean peak spectrum (MPS) requires the assumption of equal modal peak factors, which may exert a major impact on the accuracy of the mean peak responses of structures under seismic excitation. The inherent reason behind this lies in the fact that no uniform probability of exceedance exists for the MPS curve over the range of frequency considered. To tackle this problem, an alternative spectrum characterized by the fractile responses of single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems with uniform probability of exceedance at a specified percentile level, termed as the uniform probability spectrum (UPS), is proposed and adopted in the complete quadratic combination (CQC) rule to compute the structural fractile responses in the frame of RSM under Gaussian ground motion. It can be further observed that the fractile values of different structural responses are of the same probability of exceedance as that specified for the UPS used. Applications to different types of buildings are presented to validate the feasibility of the proposed UPS-based RSM in real engineering practices.
KeywordsSeismic analysis CQC combination rule Response spectrum method Mean peak spectrum Uniform probability spectrum
The research is funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51678252) and the Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou, China (201804020069).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- ASCE, SEI 7–16 (2017) Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, RestonGoogle Scholar
- Cacciola P, Colajanni P, Muscolino G (2004) Combination of modal responses consistent with seismic input representation. J Struct Eng 130:47. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:1(47) Google Scholar
- Chopra AK (2012) Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering, 4th edn. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
- Clough RW, Penzien J (2003) Dynamics of structures, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill Companies, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- CSI (2013) CSI analysis reference manual. Berkeley: Computers and Structures Inc., BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
- Der Kiureghian A (1980) Structural response to stationary excitation. J Eng Mech Div 106:1195–1213Google Scholar
- Kanai K (1957) Semi-empirical formula for the seismic characteristics of the ground. Bull Earthq Res Inst 35:309–325Google Scholar
- Luco N, Ellingwood BR, Hamburger RO et al (2007) Risk-targeted versus current seismic design maps for the conterminous United States. In: Convention proceedings of Structural engineers association of California 2007, pp 1–13Google Scholar
- Rosenblueth E (1951) A basis for aseismic design. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana, ILGoogle Scholar
- Rosenblueth E, Elorduy J (1969) Response of linear systems to certain transient disturbances. In: Proceedings of fourth world conference earthquake enigineering. Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
- Ross SM (2001) A first course in probability, 6th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
- Su C, Huang H, Ma HT (2016) Fast equivalent linearization method for nonlinear structures under nonstationary random excitations. J Eng Mech 142:4016049. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0001094 Google Scholar