Ground-Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs) for inelastic displacement and ductility demands of constant-strength SDOF systems

Rupakhety, Rajesh; Sigbjörnsson, Ragnar

doi:10.1007/s10518-009-9117-6

Cited by 27 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It can be seen from Figure 2 that the agreement between the calculated exact ductility and the approximate ductility obtained by the equal displacement rule ( = R) is, in all cases, satisfactory and that is therefore reasonable to assume that it can also be used for the proposed models with a pronounced secondary slope and higher damping. It can be also seen that the agreement is better for longer normalized periods and for smaller values of R than for short periods (close to T c ) and bigger values of R. The results for = 0 correspond well to the results obtained by other researchers [19,27,30,31]. It can be seen that the slope does not have much effect on the R − − T relations within the investigated period range.…”

Section: Parametric Study Of Idealized Sdof Systemssupporting

confidence: 88%

Simplified inelastic seismic analysis of base‐isolated structures using the N2 method

Kilar

Koren

2010

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the paper a simplified nonlinear method has been applied to the analysis of base-isolated structures. In the first part, a three-linear idealization of the capacity curve is proposed. The initial stiffness is defined based on the first yielding point in the superstructure, whereas the secondary slope depends on the failure mechanism of the superstructure. A consequence is a much more pronounced secondary slope, which does not correspond to the presumptions used in the originally proposed N2 method. A parametric nonlinear dynamic study of single degree of freedom systems with different hardening slopes and damping has been performed for an ensemble of seven EC8 spectrum-compatible artificial accelerograms. It was concluded that, in the long-period range, the equal displacement rule could be assumed also for the proposed systems with non-zero post-yield stiffness. In the second part, the proposed idealization was used for the analysis of isolated RC frame buildings that were isolated with different (lead) rubber-bearing isolation systems. The stiffness of the isolators was selected for three different protection levels and for three different ground motion intensities, which have resulted in elastic as well as moderately and fully damaged superstructure performance levels. Three different lateral load distributions were investigated. It was observed that a triangular distribution, with an additional force at the base, works best in the majority of practical cases. It was concluded that the N2 method can, in general, provide a reasonably accurate prediction of the actual top displacement, as well as of the expected damage to the superstructure.

show abstract

Section: Parametric Study Of Idealized Sdof Systemssupporting

confidence: 88%

Simplified inelastic seismic analysis of base‐isolated structures using the N2 method

Kilar

Koren

2010

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The strong ground motion parameters, i.e., acceleration, velocity and displacement, are characterized using attenuation relationships that shows the variation in strong-motion amplitude with source-to-site distance and depend on a number of source, path and site parameters (Douglas, 2019;Kramer, 1996;McGuire, 2004;Rupakhety and Sigbjörnsson, 2009). For example, the attenuation relationship for the peak horizontal acceleration has been developed by Campbell (1981) within 50 km of the fault rupture in magnitude 5.0 to 7.7 earthquakes.…”

Section: Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic hazard maps of Peshawar District for various return periods

Kazemzad

Ahmad

Khan

et al. 2020

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of Peshawar District has been performed for a grid size of 0.01∘. The seismic sources for the target location are defined as the area polygon with uniform seismicity. The earthquake catalogue was developed based on the earthquake data obtained from different worldwide seismological networks and historical records. The earthquake events obtained at different magnitude scales were converted into moment magnitude using indigenous catalogue-specific regression relationships. The homogenized catalogue was subdivided into shallow crustal and deep-subduction-zone earthquake events. The seismic source parameters were obtained using the bounded Gutenberg–Richter recurrence law. Seismic hazard maps were prepared for peak horizontal acceleration at bedrock level using different ground motion attenuation relationships. The study revealed the selection of an appropriate ground motion prediction equation is crucial for defining the seismic hazard of Peshawar District. The inclusion of deep subduction earthquakes does not add significantly to the seismic hazard for design base ground motions. The seismic hazard map developed for shallow crustal earthquakes, including also the epistemic uncertainty, was in close agreement with the map given in the Building Code of Pakistan Seismic Provisions (2007) for a return period of 475 years on bedrock. The seismic hazard maps for other return periods i.e., 50, 100, 250, 475 and 2500 years, are also presented.

show abstract

“…They proposed constitutive models for degrading structures which were calibrated against experimental data. Rupakhety and Sigbjörnsson [17] presented ground-motion prediction equations for ductility demand and inelastic spectral displacement of constant-strength perfectly elastoplastic SDOF oscillators. Sanchez-Ricart [18] reviewed the backgrounds that support the values of the reduction factor in the United States, Europe and Japan.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strength or force reduction factors for steel buildings: MDOF vs SDOF systems

Reyes‐Salazar¹,

Llanes-Tizoc²,

Bojórquez³

et al. 2017

J. vibroeng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nonlinear seismic responses of steel buildings with perimeter moment resisting frames (MRF), modeled as complex 3D MDOF systems, are calculated and the ductility demands, ductility reduction factors and the force reduction factors (), are studied. Equivalent 3D models with spatial MRF, two-dimensional models, and equivalent SDOF systems (SD), are also considered. Results indicate that the global and local force reduction factors significantly vary from one structural representation to another and that they are much larger for the SD models. One of the reasons for this is that, although there is equivalence between the SD and MDOF models, the dissipated energy and the number of incursions in the inelastic range are significantly larger for the SD models. In addition, while for the SD models total plasticization occurs, for the SAC and EQ models, even for significant yielding, plastic hinges are developed only in a relatively small number of structural members; therefore, using the factors of the SD models may be conservative. According to the results obtained in this research for the more realistic representation of the steel building (3D), the value of 8 suggested in many codes for the factor for ductile MRF cannot be justified. It is only justified for the SD systems. The implication of this is that non-conservative designs may be obtained if so large value is used. More transparence is needed in the codes regarding the magnitude and the components involved in the factor.

show abstract

Ground-Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs) for inelastic displacement and ductility demands of constant-strength SDOF systems

Cited by 27 publications

References 33 publications

Simplified inelastic seismic analysis of base‐isolated structures using the N2 method

Simplified inelastic seismic analysis of base‐isolated structures using the N2 method

Seismic hazard maps of Peshawar District for various return periods

Strength or force reduction factors for steel buildings: MDOF vs SDOF systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About