Advertisement

PGA and structural dynamics input motion at a given site

  • Fabio Casciati
  • Sara Casciati
  • Alberto Marcellini
Article

Abstract

The computation of the representative ground motions, to be used as input for the dynamic analyses of a structure at a particular site, can be approached by several methods. The choice of the approach depends on two factors : the data available and the type of problem to be solved. This paper reports the experience of the authors in approaching a specific case study: the Southern Memnon Colossus, located in Luxor, Egypt. The results are of interest when the hazard analysis estimation in developing countries and the safeguard of cultural heritage are concerned. Monuments have to be treated as important structures, due to their historical and economical value. Hence, standard procedures of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for the seismic classification of common buildings have to be disregarded. On the other hand, the consequences of the collapse of a monument are not comparable to those related to structures such as nuclear power plants and large dams, for which the deterministic seismic hazard analysis provides a straightforward framework for evaluation of the worst case ground motions. An “intermediate” approach, which requires a lower amount of input data with respect to the deterministic one, is adopted. Its stochastic component can capture significant characteristics of earthquakes, primarily the frequency contents which depend on the magnitude (often referred to as the earthquake scaling law).

Keywords

accelerograms hazard analysis site effects structural dynamics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boore D (1983), “Stochastic Simulation of High-frequency Ground Motions Based on Seismological Model of the Radiated Spectra,”BSSA,73: 1865–1894.Google Scholar
  2. Brune J (1970), “Tectonic stress and the Spectra of Seismic Shear Waves from Earthquakes,”JGR,75: 4997–5009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brune J (1971), Correction,JGR, 76: 5002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Casciati F and Faravelli L (1991),Fragility Analysis of Complex Structural Systems, Research Study Press, Taunton, UK.Google Scholar
  5. Casciati S (2001), “Analisi di Pericolosit, Fragilit Sismica ed Ipotesi di Adeguamento per uno dei Colossi di Memnone (in Italian),”MsD. Thesis, Dept. of Structural Mechanics, University of Pavia, Italy.Google Scholar
  6. Marcellini A, Daminelli R, Franceschina G and Pagani M (2001), “Regional and Local Seismic Hazard Assessment,”Soil Dynam. and Earth. Eng 21: 415–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kramer SL (1996),Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Riad S and Yousef M (1999), “Earthquake Hazard Assessment in the Southern Part of the Western Desert of Egypt,”Report Submitted to the National Authority for Remote Sensing and Space Sciences, Assuit University.Google Scholar
  9. Scnabel B, Lysmer J and Seeb HB (1972), “SHAKE ; a Computer Program for Earthquake Response Analysis of Horizontally Layered Sites,”Rep. EERC 72-12, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  10. USGS (1994), “Global Hypocenter Data Base —Ver-sion 3,” United States Geological Survey, Nat. Earthquake Information Center.Google Scholar
  11. Zaghw AH (2003), Egypt Seismicity, in Deliverable D4 of the CHIME EU project.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabio Casciati
    • 1
  • Sara Casciati
    • 1
  • Alberto Marcellini
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Structural MechanicsUniversity of PaviaPaviaItaly
  2. 2.CNR-IDPAMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations