The effect of earthquake duration on the damage of structures

Jeong, Garrett D.; Iwan, W. D.

doi:10.1002/eqe.4290160808

Cited by 49 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…C and c are application-dependent damage coe cients: C is a linear scale factor and c determines the relative importance of di erent amplitude cycles. Jeong and Iwan [29] used c = 2 to represent the fatigue damage of wide ange steel columns and c = 6 for rectangular reinforced concrete columns. Malhotra [9] proposed c = 2 as a reasonable value.…”

Section: Generic Deÿnitions Of Number Of Cyclesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effective number of cycles of earthquake ground motion

Hancock

Bommer

2005

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThe seismic response of any system that accumulates damage under cyclic loading is dependent not only on the maximum amplitude of the motion but also its duration. This is explicitly recognized in methods for estimating the liquefaction potential of soil deposits. Many researchers have proposed that the e ective number of cycles of the ground motion is a more robust indicator of the destructive capacity of the shaking than the duration. However, as is the case with strong-motion duration, there is no universally accepted approach to determining the e ective number of cycles of motion, and the di erent methods that have been proposed can give widely varying results for a particular accelerogram. Deÿnitions of the e ective number of cycles of motion are reviewed, classiÿed and compared. Measurements are found to di er particularly for accelerograms with broad-banded frequency content, which contain a signiÿcant number of non-zero crossing peaks. The key seismological parameters in uencing the number of cycles of motion and associated equations for predicting this quantity for future earthquakes are identiÿed. Correlations between cycle counts and di erent duration measures are explored and found to be rather poor in the absence of additional parameters.

show abstract

Section: Generic Deÿnitions Of Number Of Cyclesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effective number of cycles of earthquake ground motion

Hancock

Bommer

2005

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In other cases, it will be necessary to identify the potential failure modes for the whole system or for significant portions of it that may be triggered by local failures at the members or system segments where damage concentrations take place; global failure probabilities will then have to be estimated taking into account the possibilities of occurrence of all significant failure modes. Both global and local damage can be measured by different types of indicators; some of them are based on peak amplitudes of response demands, while others take into account concepts related to dissipated energy or to low-cycle fatigue indexes (Banon, Biggs, & Irvine, 1981;Banon & Veneziano, 1982;Cosenza, Manfredi, & Ramasco, 1993;Jeong & Iwan, 1988;Park & Ang, 1984;Powell & Allahabadi, 1988;Roufaiel & Meyer, 1987;Wang & Shah, 1987;Williams & Sexsmith, 1995). The variables considered in a few of the damage indicators proposed in these references are summarised in Table 1.…”

Section: Damage Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…K 0 = initial stiffness, K f = secant stiffness at failure, K m = secant stiffness at peak deformation Jeong and Iwan (1988) General In this equation, C 0 is the initial construction cost, B is the present value of the expected benefits to be received while the system remains in operation, E[·] is the expected value, T i is the unknown time of occurrence of seismic event i, D i is the expected value of the costs associated with the potential damage generated by this event and γ is the discount coefficient adopted to transform instantaneous values at any time to present values at the decision-making time.…”

Section: Authorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural damage accumulation and control for life cycle optimum seismic performance of buildings

Esteva

Dı́az-López

Vásquez

et al. 2015

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seismic reliability and expected performance functions of structural systems are sensitive to the process of damage accumulation associated with the random sequences of ground motion excitations that those systems may experience. Optimum life cycle-based engineering decisions must examine the influence of concepts related to both the target safety level of the initial system and the eventual repair and maintenance actions that may be undertaken during the life of the system. This study includes an overview of the general framework supporting these decisions as well as some available results about (a) the influence of damage accumulation of the seismic vulnerability functions of building structures, (b) approximate estimates of accumulated damage and (c) optimum damage threshold values for repair of structural frames or replacement of energy dissipating devices. Some comments are presented concerning desirable studies about life cycle optimisation of systems exposed to different types of excitations.

show abstract

“…For instance, Jeong and Iwan (1988) studied the effects of durations of a single earthquake on the accumulation of strains in structural members. Ballio and Castiglioni (1994) conducted a series of linear and nonlinear analyses to ascertain the dependence of accumulated damage on absorbed energy and loading history.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%