Response of Nonlinear SDOF Structures to Random Acceleration Sequences

  • Izuru Takewaki
  • Abbas Moustafa
  • Kohei Fujita
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series in Reliability Engineering book series (RELIABILITY)

Abstract

In performance-based design, the structure is designed to behave linearly elastic without damage under a moderate frequent earthquake and to undergo repairable damage under a rare strong earthquake. Design earthquakes are specified in current seismic codes as single events. However, the structure may experience repeated accelerations in a short period of time. Ground accelerations of multiple sequences could result in more damage to the structure than a single ordinary event.

Keywords

Attenuation Ductility 

References

  1. 1.
    Ghobara A (2001) Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: state of development. Review article. Eng Struct 23:878–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    SEAOC, Vision Committee (2002) Performance based seismic design engineering. Sacramento, USA: structural engineers association of California (SEAOC) reportGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Architectural Institute of Japan (2004) Recommendations for loads on buildings. AIJ, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    European Committee for Standardization (2003) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    International Building Code (2009) International code council Inc, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eberhard M, Baldridge S, Marshall J, Mooney W, Rix G (2010) The Mw 7.0 Haiti earthquake of January 12, 2010. USGS/EERI advance reconnaissance team: team report V 1.0Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kyoshin-Net (2009) National research institute for earth science and disaster prevention. Available at http://www.k-net.bosai.go.jp/. Accessed June 2009
  8. 8.
    PEER (2005) Pacific earthquake engineering research center. (http://peer.berkeley.edu)
  9. 9.
    Elnashai A, Bommer JJ, Martinez-Pereira A (1998) Engineering implications of strong-motion records from recent earthquakes. In: Proceedings of 11th european conference on earthquake engineering, Paris, CD-ROMGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Amadio C, Fragiacomo M, Rajgelj S (2003) The effects of repeated earthquake ground motions on the non-linear response of SDOF systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32:291–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fragiacomo M, Amadio C, Macorini L (2004) Seismic response of steel frames under repeated earthquake ground motions. Eng Struct 26(2021):2035Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Das S, Gupta VK, Srimahavishnu V (2007) Damage-based design with no repair for multiple events and its sensitivity to seismicity model. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36:307–325Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE (2009) Inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF structures subjected to repeated earthquakes. Eng Struct 31(11):2744–2755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hatzigeorgiou GD (2010) Ductility demand spectra for multiple near- and far-fault earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(4):170–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hatzigeorgiou GD, Liolios AA (2010) Nonlinear behaviour of RC frames under repeated strong ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:1010–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hatzigeorgiou GD (2010) Damping modification factors for SDOF systems subjected to near-fault, far-fault and artificial earthquakes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39(11):1239–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moustafa A, Takewaki I (2012) Earthquake ground motion of multiple sequences and associated structural response. Earthq Struct 3(3) (in press)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dunbar WS, Charlwood RG (1991) Empirical methods for the prediction of response spectra. Earthq Spectra 7(3):333–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shcherbakov R, Turcotte DL, Rundle JB (2005) Aftershock statistics. Pure Appl Geophys 162:1051–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yeo GL, Cornell CA (2009) Post-earthquake decision analysis using dynamic programming. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38:79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yeo GL, Cornell CA (2009) A probabilistic framework for quantification of aftershock ground-motion hazard in California: methodology and parametric study. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38:45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lin YK, Yong Y (1987) Evolutionary Kanai-Tajimi earthquake models. J Eng Mech 113(8):1119–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shinozuka M, Deodatis G (1988) Stochastic process models for earthquake ground motion. J Prob Eng Mech 3:114–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spanos PD (1987) Recursive simulation of stationary multivariate random processes—part II. J. Appl Mech ASME 54:681–687MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Conte JP, Peng BF (1997) Fully nonstationary analytical earthquake ground-motion model. J Eng Mech 123(1):15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Der Kiureghian A, Crempien J (1989) An evolutionary model for earthquake ground motion. Struct Saf 6:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shinozuka M, Deodatis G (1991) Simulation of stochastic processes by spectral reprezentation. App Mech Rev 44(4):191–204MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shinozuka M, Deodatis G (1996) Simulation of multi-dimensional Gaussian stochastic fields by spectral representation. App Mech Rev 49(1):29–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Takewaki I (2007) Critical excitation methods in earthquake engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kanai K (1957) Semiempirical formula for the seismic characteristics of the ground. Bulletin of Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo 35:309–325Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tajimi H (1960) A statistical method of determining the maximum response of a building structure during earthquakes. In: Proceedings second WCEE, Tokyo, 2:781–797Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Boore DM (1983) Stochastic simulation of high-frequency ground motions based on seismological models of the radiated spectra. Bull Seism So Amer 73:1865–1894Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Brune JN (1970) Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. J Geoph Res 75:4997–5009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Quek ST, Teo YP, Balendra T (1990) Non-stationary structural response with evolutionary spectra using seismological input model. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 19:275–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Roberts JB, Spanos PD (1990) Random vibration and statistical linearization. Wiley, ChichesterMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Akiyama H (1985) Earthquake-resistant limit-state design for buildings. University of Tokyo Press, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zahrah TF, Hall WJ (1984) Earthquake energy absorption in sdof structures. J Struct Eng 110:1757–1772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Uang CM, Bereto VV (1990) Evaluation of seismic energy in structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 19:77–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Park YJ, Ang AH-S (1985) Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. J Struct Eng 111(4):722–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Abbas AM, Manohar CS (2005) Reliability-based critical earthquake load models. Part 1: linear structures. J Sound Vib 287:865–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Moustafa A, Takewaki I (2011) Response of nonlinear single-degree-of-freedom structures to random acceleration sequences. Eng Struct 33:1251–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Izuru Takewaki
    • 1
  • Abbas Moustafa
    • 2
  • Kohei Fujita
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Architecture and Architectural EngineeringKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringMinia UniversityMiniaEgypt

Personalised recommendations