Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 657–680 | Cite as

A modified response spectrum method based on uniform probability spectrum

  • Cheng SuEmail author
  • Zhijian Huang
  • Jianhua Xian
Original Research
  • 219 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Seismic analysis CQC combination rule Response spectrum method Mean peak spectrum Uniform probability spectrum 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. ASCE, SEI 7–16 (2017) Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, RestonGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Chopra AK (2012) Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering, 4th edn. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  4. Clough RW, Penzien J (2003) Dynamics of structures, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill Companies, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. CSI (2013) CSI analysis reference manual. Berkeley: Computers and Structures Inc., BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  6. Der Kiureghian A (1980) Structural response to stationary excitation. J Eng Mech Div 106:1195–1213Google Scholar
  7. Der Kiureghian A (1981) A response spectrum method for random vibration analysis of mdf systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 9:419–435.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290090503 Google Scholar
  8. Hong HP, Wang SS (2002) Probabilistic analysis of peak response of MDOF systems with uncertain PSD function. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31:1719–1733.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.187 Google Scholar
  9. Igusa T, Der Kiureghian A (1985) Generation of floor response spectra including oscillator-structure interaction. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 13:661–676.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290130508 Google Scholar
  10. Kanai K (1957) Semi-empirical formula for the seismic characteristics of the ground. Bull Earthq Res Inst 35:309–325Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Maldonado GO, Singh MP (1991) An improved response spectrum method for calculating seismic design response. Part 2: non-classically damped structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 20:637–649.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290200704 Google Scholar
  13. Menun C, Reyes JC, Chopra AK (2015) Errors caused by peak factor assumptions in response-spectrum-based analyses. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44:1729–1746.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2552 Google Scholar
  14. Rosenblueth E (1951) A basis for aseismic design. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana, ILGoogle Scholar
  15. Rosenblueth E, Elorduy J (1969) Response of linear systems to certain transient disturbances. In: Proceedings of fourth world conference earthquake enigineering. Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
  16. Ross SM (2001) A first course in probability, 6th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  17. Shinozuka M (1972) Monte Carlo solution of structural dynamics. Comput Struct 2:855–874.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(72)90043-0 Google Scholar
  18. Singh MP, Maldonado GO (1991) An improved response spectrum method for calculating seismic design response. Part 1: classically damped structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 20:621–635.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290200703 Google Scholar
  19. Su C, Xu R (2014) Random vibration analysis of structures by a time-domain explicit formulation method. Struct Eng Mech 52:239–260.  https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2014.52.2.239 Google Scholar
  20. Su C, Huang ZJ, Liu XL (2015) Time-domain explicit random simulation method for seismic analysis of tall buildings. J Build Struct 36:13–22.  https://doi.org/10.14006/j.jzjgxb.2015.01.002 Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Wilson EL, Der Kiureghian A, Bayo EP (1981) A replacement for the SRSS method in seismic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 9:187–192.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290090207 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil Engineering and TransportationSouth China University of TechnologyGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Subtropical Building ScienceSouth China University of TechnologyGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations