Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE A

, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 619–634 | Cite as

Use of probabilistic and deterministic measures to identify unfavorable earthquake records

Article

Abstract

This study introduces measures to identify resonant (concentration of energy in a single or a few frequencies) or unfavorable earthquake ground motions. Probabilistic measures based on the entropy rate and the geometric properties of the power spectral density function (PSDF) of the ground acceleration are developed first. Subsequently, deterministic measures for the frequency content of the ground acceleration are also developed. These measures are then used for identifying resonance and criticality in stochastic earthquake models and 110 acceleration records measured at rock, stiff, medium and soft soil sites. The unfavorable earthquake record for a given structure is defined as the record having a narrow frequency content and dominant frequency close to the structure fundamental natural frequency. Accordingly, the measures developed in this study may provide a basis for selecting records that are capable of producing the highest structural response. Numerical verifications are provided on damage caused to structures by identified resonant records.

Key words

Entropy rate Dispersion index Power spectral density function (PSDF) Frequency content Unfavorable ground motion Resonant acceleration Critical accelerogram Energy Damage index 

CLC number

P315 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbas, A.M., 2002. Deterministic/Reliability-based Critical Earthquake Load Models for Linear/Nonlinear Structures. PhD Thesis, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.Google Scholar
  2. Abbas, A.M., 2006. Critical seismic load inputs for simple inelastic structures. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 296(4-5):949–967. [doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2006.03.021]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abbas, A.M., Manohar, C.S., 2008. Investigations into critical earthquake excitations within deterministic and probabilistic frameworks. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 31(4):813–832. [doi:10.1002/eqe.124]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abbas, A.M., Manohar, C.S., 2007. Reliability-based vector nonstationary random critical earthquake excitations for parametrically excited systems. Structural Safety, 29(1):32–48. [doi:10.1016/j.strusafe.2005.11.003]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amiri, G.G., Dana, F.M., 2005. Introduction to the most suitable parameter for selection of critical earthquakes. Computers & Structures, 83(8-9):613–626. [doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2004.10.010]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson, J.C., Bertero, V.V., 1987. Uncertainties in establishing design earthquakes. Journal of Structural Engineerin, 113(8):1709–1724. [doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1987)113:8(1709)]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arias, A., 1970. A Measure of Earthquake Intensity. Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p.438–468.Google Scholar
  8. Dhakal, R.P., Mander, J.B., Mashiko, N., 2006. Identification of critical ground motions for seismic performance assessment of structures. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 35(8):989–1008. [doi:10.1002/eqe.568]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kanai, K., 1957. Semi-empirical formula for the seismic characteristics of the ground. Bulletin of Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo, 35:309–325.Google Scholar
  10. Kapur, J.N., 1993. Maximum Entropy Models in Science and Engineering. Wiley Eastern, New Delhi.MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Lin, Y.K., 1967. Probabilistic Theory of Structural Dynamics. McGraw-Hill, NY.Google Scholar
  12. Manohar, C.S., Sarkar, A., 1995Critical earthquake input power spectral density function models for engineering structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 24:1549–1566. [doi:10.1002/eqe.4290241202]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Moustafa, A., 2008. Discussion of a new approach of selecting real input ground motions for seismic design: the most unfavorable real seismic design ground motions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics (in press). [doi:10.1002/eqe.885]Google Scholar
  14. Moustafa, A., 2009. Discussion of “The effect of energy concentration of earthquake ground motions on the nonlinear response of RC structures” by H. Cao, M.I. Friswell. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 29(7):1181–1183. [doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.02.004]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nigam, N.C., Narayanan, S., 1994. Applications of Random Vibrations. Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  16. Papoulis, A., 1991. Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes. McGraw-Hill, NY.MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Park, Y.J., Ang, A.H.S., 1985. Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, 111(4):722–739. [doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1985)111:4(722)]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. PEER, 2005. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Available from: http://peer.berkeley.edu (Accessed 2008)
  19. Shannon, C., 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27:623–656.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Tajimi, H., 1960. A Statistical Method of Determining the Maximum Response of a Building Structure during Earthquakes. Proc. 2nd WCEE, Tokyo, 2:781–797.Google Scholar
  21. Takewaki, I., 2001. Resonance and criticality measure of ground motions via probabilistic critical excitation method. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 21(8):645–659. [doi:10.1016/S0267-7261(01)00046-X]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Takewaki, I., 2002. Seismic critical excitation method for robust design: A review. Journal of Structural Engineering, 128(5):665–672. [doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:5(665)]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Takewaki, I., 2004. Bound of earthquake input energy. Journal of Structural Engineering, 130(9):1289–1297. [doi:10. 1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:9(1289)]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Takewaki, I., 2007. Critical Excitation Methods in Earthquake Engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p.1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Trifunac, M.D, Brady, A.G., 1975. A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 65(3):581–626.Google Scholar
  26. Uang, C.M., Bertero, V.V., 1988. Implications of Recorded Earthquake Ground Motions on Seismic Design of Building Structures. Report No. UCB/EERC-88/13, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  27. Vanmarcke, E.H., 1972. Properties of spectral moments with applications to random vibration. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 98(2):425–446.Google Scholar
  28. Vanmarcke, E.H., 1976. Structural Response to Earthquakes. Lomnitz, C., Rosenbluth, E. (Eds.), Seismic Risk and Engineering Decisions. Elsevier, NY.Google Scholar
  29. Zhai, C.H., Xie, L.L., 2007. A new approach of selecting real input ground motions for seismic design: The most unfavourable real seismic design ground motions. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 36(8): 1009–1027. [doi:10.1002/eqe.669]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Zhejiang University and Springer-Verlag GmbH 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urban and Environmental Engineering, Graduate School of EngineeringKyoto UniversityNishikyo-kuJapan
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineering, School of EngineeringMinia UniversityMiniaEgypt

Personalised recommendations