Scalar Structure-Specific Ground Motion Intensity Measures for Assessing the Seismic Performance of Structures: A Review

Kostinakis, Konstantinos; Fontara, Ioanna‐Kleoniki; Athanatopoulou, Asimina

doi:10.1080/13632469.2016.1264323

Cited by 79 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although Sa(T1) is the most used ground-motion intensity measure (IM) around the world for PSHAs, it has some limitations. For example, it does not consider the effect of period lengthening of the structure due to its nonlinear behavior and mechanical properties degradation (Baker and Cornell, 2005;Bojorquez et al, 2008;Bojórquez et al, 2017a;Bojórquez and Iervolino, 2011;Kostinakis et al, 2018;Mehanny and Cordova, 2004;Shome et al, 1988;Tothong and Luco, 2007).…”

Section: Methodology Proposedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some researchers suggest using vector-valued ground motion IMs. By including two or more representative parameters of the ground motion, accurate evaluations of seismic performance can be achieved (Baker and Cornell, 2005;Bojorquez et al, 2008;Bojórquez et al, 2017a;Bojórquez and Iervolino, 2011;Kostinakis et al, 2018;Mehanny and Cordova, 2004;Tothong and Luco, 2007). Accordingly, Bojórquez et al, (2008) developed the vector-valued intensity measure <Sa(T1), Np>, where Np is a parameter proxy for the spectral shape, this IM is an advancement in predicting the seismic response in comparison with other IMs.…”

Section: Inp Intensity Measurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reliability-based strength modification factor for seismic design spectra considering structural degradation

Ruiz¹,

Rodríguez-Castellanos²,

Bojórquez³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. For earthquake resistant design, structural degradation is considered using traditional strength modification factors, which are obtained via the ratio of the nonlinear seismic response of degrading and non-degrading structural single degree of freedom (SDOF) systems. In this paper, with the aim to avoid the nonlinear seismic response to compute strength modification factors, a methodology based on probabilistic seismic hazard analyses (PSHA) is proposed in order to obtain strength modification factors of design spectra which consider structural degradation through the spectral-shape intensity measure INp. PSHA using INp to account for structural degradation, and Sa(T1) which represents the spectral acceleration associated with the fundamental period and does not consider such degradation, are performed. The ratio of the uniform hazard spectra in terms of INp and Sa(T1), that represent the response of degrading and non-degrading systems, provide new strength modification factors without the need to develop nonlinear time history analysis. A mathematical expression is fitted to the ratios that correspond to systems located in different soil types. The expression is validated by comparing the results with those derived from nonlinear time-history analyses of structural systems.

show abstract

Section: Methodology Proposedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Inp Intensity Measurementioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability-based strength modification factor for seismic design spectra considering structural degradation

Ruiz¹,

Rodríguez-Castellanos²,

Bojórquez³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Luco and Cornell 2007). For different types of buildings these criteria have led to many choices of IMs (Kostinakis et al 2016). Peak ground acceleration, PGA, has been often used for very stiff buildings (and, less appropriately, for flexible ones as well).…”

Section: Selecting Intensity Measure Types To Define Fragility Functionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current Challenges and Future Trends in Analytical Fragility and Vulnerability Modeling

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The lack of empirical data regarding earthquake damage or losses has propelled the development of dozens of analytical methodologies for the derivation of fragility and vulnerability functions. Each method will naturally have its strengths and weaknesses, which will consequently affect the associated risk estimates. With the purpose of sharing knowledge on vulnerability modeling, identifying shortcomings in the existing methods, and recommending improvements to the current practice, a group of vulnerability experts met in Pavia (Italy) in April 2017. Critical topics related to the selection of ground motion records, modeling of complex real structures through simplified approaches, propagation of aleatory and epistemic uncertainties, and validation of vulnerability results were discussed, and suggestions were proposed to improve the reliability and accuracy in vulnerability modeling.

show abstract

“…Also, a critical study (Klügel 2007) on the probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis notices the limitations of PSA by energy-conservation principles, noticing that seismic events with very different energy content may have similar PSA. Concerns regarding the performance of the spectral acceleration in estimating demand parameters of realistic structures have been expressed also in Kohrangi et al (2016a, b) and Schotanus et al (2004), which analyse a set of intensity measures used in practice for realistic 3D structures, or in Kostinakis et al (2017) and Douglas et al (2015), which express the need of intensity measures to be structure-specific. A similar observation is offered in Vargas et al (2013), which uses ordinates of the spectral displacement as intensity measure, but seeks an approach that takes into account the non-linear behaviours of structures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An earthquake-source-based metric for seismic fragility analysis

Radu

Grigoriu

2018

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The seismic fragility of a system is the probability that the system enters a damage state under seismic ground motions with specified characteristics. Plots of the seismic fragilities with respect to scalar ground motion intensity measures are called fragility curves. Recent studies show that fragility curves may not be satisfactory measures for structural seismic performance, since scalar intensity measures cannot comprehensively characterize site seismicity. The limitations of traditional seismic intensity measures, e.g., peak ground acceleration or pseudo-spectral acceleration, are shown and discussed in detail. A bivariate vector with coordinates moment magnitude m and source-to-site distance r is proposed as an alternative seismic intensity measure. Implicitly, fragility surfaces in the (m, r)-space could be used as graphical representations of seismic fragility. Unlike fragility curves, which are functions of scalar intensity measures, fragility surfaces are characterized by two earthquake-hazard parameters, (m, r). The calculation of fragility surfaces may be computationally expensive for complex systems. Thus, as solutions to this issue, a bi-variate log-normal parametric model and an efficient calculation method, based on stochastic-reduced-order models, for fragility surfaces are proposed.

show abstract

Scalar Structure-Specific Ground Motion Intensity Measures for Assessing the Seismic Performance of Structures: A Review

Cited by 79 publications

References 66 publications

Reliability-based strength modification factor for seismic design spectra considering structural degradation

Reliability-based strength modification factor for seismic design spectra considering structural degradation

Current Challenges and Future Trends in Analytical Fragility and Vulnerability Modeling

An earthquake-source-based metric for seismic fragility analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About