Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Seismic Analysis and Response of Structures

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Modern Earthquake Engineering

  • 1993 Accesses

Abstract

The major objective of seismic analysis is to develop a quantitative measure or a transfer function that can convert the strong ground motions at a structure’s foundation to loading and displacement demands of the structure, which provide essential input for a reliable assessment of structural capacity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Ghobarah A (2001) Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: state of development. Eng Struct 23(8):878–884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kelly TE (2004) Analysis paralysis: a 2003 state-of-the-art report on seismic analysis. Bull NZ Soc Earthq Eng 37(1):23–34

    Google Scholar 

  3. Jia J (2012) Seismic analysis for offshore industry: promoting state of the practice toward state of the art. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international ocean and polar engineering conference (ISOPE), Rhodes, Greece

    Google Scholar 

  4. Jia J (2014) Essentials of applied dynamic analysis. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK (1998) Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Eng Struct 20(4–6):452–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kalkan E, Graizer V (2007) Multi-component ground motion response spectra for coupled horizontal, vertical, angular accelerations, and tilt. ISET J Earthq Technol 44(1):259–284

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wilson Ed (2013) Comments on the response spectrum analysis method. In: Presentation at SAB Meeting, 28 August, 2013

    Google Scholar 

  8. Moran R, Wang Y, Chokslhi N, Kenneally R, Norris W (1999) Evaluation of modal combination methods for seismic response spectrum analysis, Paper ID K4-A4-US, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rosenblueth E (1951) A basis for aseismic design. PhD thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chopra AK (2000) Dynamics of structures: theory and application to earthquake engineering, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  11. Barltrop NDP, Adams AJ (1991) Dynamics of fixed marine structures, 3rd edn. MTD Ltd., London

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wilson EL, Der Kiureghian A, Bayo ER (1981) A replacement for SRSS method in seismic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 9:187–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Der Kiureghian A (1981) A response spectrum method for random vibration analysis of MDF systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 9:419–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rosenblueth E, Elorduy J (1969) Responses of linear systems to certain transient disturbances. In: Proceedings of the fourth world conference on earthquake engineering, santiago, Chile, vol I, pp 185–196

    Google Scholar 

  15. NORSOK N-003 (2007) Actions and action effects, 2nd edn. Standards Norway, Lysaker, Norway

    Google Scholar 

  16. ISO19901-2 (2004) Petroleum and natural gas industries—specific requirements for offshore structures—part 2: seismic design procedures and criteria, 1st edn. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wilson Ed (2015) Termination of the response spectrum method (RSM)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Freeman SA, Nicoletti JP, Tyrdl JV (1975) Evaluations of existing buildings for seismic risk: a case study of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington. In: Proceedings of US national conference on earthquake engineering, Berkeley, pp 113–122

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bozorgnia Y, Bertero V (2004) Non-linear dynamic analysis, in earthquake engineering: from engineering seismology to performance-based design. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 1–17

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Seifi M, Noorzaei J, Jaafar MS, Yazdan Panah E (2008) Non-linear static pushover analysis in earthquake engineering: state of development. In: International conference on construction and building technology, ICCBT 2008, Kuala Lumpur, pp 69–80

    Google Scholar 

  21. Eurocode 8 (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  22. ATC 40 (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, vol 1. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, USA

    Google Scholar 

  23. FEMA-356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  24. GDPK Seneviratna (1995) Evaluation of inelastic MDOF effects for seismic design. PhD dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ghobarah A (2001) Review article: performance-based design in earthquake engineering: state of development. Eng Struct 23:878–884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Paret TF, Sasaki KK, Eilbeck DH, Freeman SA (1996) Approximate inelastic procedures to identify failure mechanisms from higher mode effects. In: Proceedings of the 11th world conference on earthquake engineering, Disc 2, Paper No. 966

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sasaki KK, Freeman SA, Paret TF (1998) Multi-mode pushover procedure (MMP): a method to identify the effects of higher modes in a pushover analysis. In: Proceedings of the sixth US national conference on earthquake engineering

    Google Scholar 

  28. Chopra AK, Goel RK (2002) A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):561–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Antoniou S, Pinho R (2004) Advantages and limitations of adaptive and non-adaptive force-based pushover procedures. J Earthq Eng 8(4):497–522

    Google Scholar 

  30. Antoniou S, Pinho R (2004) Development and verification of a displacement-based adaptive pushover procedure. J Earthq Eng 8(5):643–661

    Google Scholar 

  31. Chopra AK, Goel RK (2004) A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 33(8):903–927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. FEMA-273 (1997) NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  33. FEMA-274 (1997) NEHRP commentary on the guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  34. FEMA-450 (2004) NEHRP recommended provisions and commentary for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures. FEMA, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lu X, Ye L, Miu Z (2009) Elastic-plastic analysis for earthquake resistant building structures: theory, modeling and applications. In: ABAQUS, MSC.MARC, and SAP2000 (In Chinese), China Architecture and Building Press

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kalkan E, Kunnath SK (2004) Method of modal combinations for pushover analysis of buildings. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  37. Habibullah A, Pyle S (1998) Practical three dimensional non-linear static pushover analyses. Structure Magazine, Berkley

    Google Scholar 

  38. Elnashai AS (2001) Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for earthquake applications. Struct Eng Mech 12(1):51–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mwafy AA, Elnashai AS (2001) Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC frames. Eng Struct 23:407–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gupta B, Kunnath SK (2000) Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic evaluation of structures. Earthq Spectra 20(4–6):452–464

    Google Scholar 

  41. Seifried AE (2013) Response spectrum compatibilization and its impact on structural response assessment. PhD thesis, Stanford University

    Google Scholar 

  42. China Net for Engineering Construction Standardization (2010) Code for seismic design of buildings, GB 50011-2010. China Building Industry Press, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  43. NORSAR, NGI (1998) Seismic zonation for Norway. Report for the Norwegian Council for Building Standardization

    Google Scholar 

  44. SHAKE 2000 (2008) A computer program for the 1-D analysis of geotechnical earthquake engineering problem. University of California, Berkeley 2008

    Google Scholar 

  45. Eurocode 3 (2005) Design of steel structures—part 1-1: general rules and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  46. Jia J (2016) Soil dynamics and foundation modeling: offshore and earthquake engineering. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  47. Lauritzsen R, Kvitrud A, To P (1985) User manual for computer program CAP, NGI, Report No. 52406

    Google Scholar 

  48. Kubo T, Penzien J (1979) Analysis of three-dimensional strong ground motions along principal axes, San Fernando earthquake. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 7:265–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kubo T, Penzien J (1979) Simulation of three-dimensional strong ground motions along principal axes, San Fernando Earthquake. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 7:279–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Penzien J, Watabe M (1975) Characteristics of 3-dimensional earthquake ground motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 3:365–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Hadjian AH (1978) On the correlation of the components of strong ground motion. In: Proceedings of second international conference on microzonation, vol. III, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  52. Bertero VV (1977) Strength and deformation capacities of buildings under extreme environments. Struct Eng Struct Mech 53(1):29–79

    Google Scholar 

  53. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2000) Seismic performance, capacity and reliability of structures as seen through incremental dynamic analysis, Report No. RMS-55, RMS Program, Stanford University, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  54. Vamvatsikos D (2002) Seismic performance, capacity and reliability of structures as seen through incremental dynamic analysis. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA

    Google Scholar 

  55. Asgarian B, Aghakouchak AA, Alanjari P, Assareh MA (2008) Incremental dynamic analysis of jacket type offshore platforms considering soil–pile interaction. In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  56. Mander JB, Dhakal RP, Mashiko N, Solberg KM (2007) Incremental dynamic analysis applied to seismic financial risk assessment of bridges. Eng Struct 29(10):2662–2672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Shome N, Cornell CA, Bazzuro P, Carballo JE (1998) Earthquakes, records, and non-linear responses. Earthq Spectra 14:469–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. FMA 350 (2000) Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame buildings. FEMA 350, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  59. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2004) Applied incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Spectra 20(2):523–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Vamvatsikos D (2011) Performing incremental dynamic analysis in parallel. Comput Struct 89(1-2):170–180

    Google Scholar 

  61. Shome N, Cornell CA (1999) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of non-linear structures, Report No. RMS-35, RMS Program, Stanford University, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  62. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Ramberg W, Osgood WR (1943) Description of stress–strain curves by three parameters, Technical Note No. 902, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  64. Estekanchi HE, Vafai A, Sadeghazar M (2004) Endurance time method for seismic analysis and design of structures. Sci Iran 11:361–370

    Google Scholar 

  65. Razavi M (2007) Evaluation of endurance time method compared to spectral dynamic analysis method in seismic analysis of steel frames. Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

    Google Scholar 

  66. Mirzai A (2007) Usage of ET method in performance-based design of steel frames. Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

    Google Scholar 

  67. Estekanchi HE, Riahi HT, Vafai A (2008) Endurance time method: exercise test for seismic assessment of structures. In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  68. Riahi HT, Estekanchi HE (2010) Seismic assessment of steel frames with the endurance time method. J Constr Steel Res 66(6):780–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Estekanchi HE, Vafai A, Valamanesh V, Mirzaee A, Nozari A, Bazmuneh A (2011) Recent advances in seismic assessment of structures by endurance time method. In: Proceedings of a US–Iran–Turkey seismic workshop: seismic risk management in urban areas; PEER report 2011/07, 14–16 December 2010, pp 289–301, Istanbul, Turkey

    Google Scholar 

  70. Estekanchi HE, Riahi HT, Vafai A (2011) Application of endurance time method in seismic assessment of steel frames. Eng Struct 33(9):2535–2546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Estekanchi HE, Alembagheri M (2012) Seismic analysis of steel liquid storage tanks by endurance time method. Thin Walled Struct 50(1):14–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Jahanmard V, Diznab MAD, Mehdigholi H, Tabeshpour MR, Seif MS (2015) Performance-based assessment of steel jacket platforms by wave endurance time method. J Ships Offshore Struct, articles in press

    Google Scholar 

  73. Takewaki I (2007) Critical excitation methods in earthquake engineering. Elsevier, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  74. Takewaki I (2004) Critical envelope functions for non-stationary random earthquake input. Comput Struct 82(20–21):1671–1683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Singh JP (1984) Characteristics of near-field ground motion and their importance in building design, ATC-10-1 critical aspects of earthquake ground motion and building damage potential, ATC, 23–42

    Google Scholar 

  76. Anderson JC, Bertero VV (1987) Uncertainties in establishing design earthquakes. J Struct Eng 113(8):1709–1724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Geller RJ, Jackson DD, Kagan YY, Mulargia F (1997) Earthquakes cannot be predicted. Science 275:1616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Takewaki I (2002) Critical excitation method for robust design: a review. J Struct Eng 128(5):665–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Stein RS (2003) Earthquake conversations. Sci Am 288(1):72–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Drenick RF (1970) Model-free design of aseismic structures. J Eng Mech Div 96(4):483–493

    Google Scholar 

  81. Shinozuka M (1970) Maximum structural response to seismic excitations. J Eng Mech Div 96(EM5):729–738

    Google Scholar 

  82. Shinozuka M (1970) Chapter 5: maximum structural response to earthquake accelerations. In: Lind NC (ed) Structural reliability and codified design. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, pp 73–85

    Google Scholar 

  83. Iyengar RN (1970) Matched inputs, Report No. 47, Series J, Center for Applied Stochastics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN

    Google Scholar 

  84. Yang JN, Heer E (1971) Maximum dynamic response and proof testing. J Eng Mech Div 97(4):1307–1313

    Google Scholar 

  85. Takewaki I (2007) Critical excitation methods in earthquake engineering, 1st edn. Elsevier, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  86. Yang Z, Lu X, Hwu T-H, Xu Y (2004) Effect of linking fluid dampers on whipping effect and torsional response of tower-podium system. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver

    Google Scholar 

  87. Gusella V, Spadaccini O, Vignoli A (1996) In-service dynamic behavior of a drilling derrick on a jacket platform. Int J Offshore Polar Eng, 6(3):184–194

    Google Scholar 

  88. Joseph LM, Poon D, Shieh S (2006) Ingredients of high rise design, Taipei 101 the world’s tallest building. Structure Magazine, 6

    Google Scholar 

  89. Tabeshpour MR, Komachi Y, Golafshani AA (2012) Assessment and rehabilitation of jacket platforms. In: Moustafa A (ed) Earthquake-resistant structures: design, assessment and rehabilitation. Intech, Rijeka, Croatia

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aker Solutions, Bergen, Norway

    Junbo Jia

Authors
  1. Junbo Jia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Junbo Jia .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jia, J. (2017). Seismic Analysis and Response of Structures. In: Modern Earthquake Engineering . Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31854-2_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31854-2_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-31853-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-31854-2

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation