Three Proposals for Characterizing MDOF Nonlinear Seismic Response
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 124, Issue 11
Abstract
This paper reviews, compares, and contrasts the three methodologies proposed by C. A. Cornell, by Y. K. Wen, and by FEMA 273 (as proposed by H. Krawinkler) for predicting the postelastic response of buildings subject to seismic excitation. All three methods have the potential to contribute effectively to the problem of improving the practical prediction of seismic response of structures. Applications include preliminary design, routine (code) use, calibration of codes, and specific structure assessment. These methods appear different because their authors did not share the same objectives or information bases. The methods by Cornell and Wen are decisively prediction-oriented in explicitly probabilistic frameworks. The approach suggested by Krawinkler has instead the goal of understanding in some average sense the seismic response of structures at various performance levels. This last method has been adopted, however, for prediction purposes by the FEMA 273 Guidelines for rehabilitation of existing buildings. Despite the differences, the work proposed by these researchers is profitably brought under the same perspective here.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Applied Technology Council (ATC). (1996a). “NEHRP guidelines for seismic rehabilitation of buildings—ballot draft FEMA 273.” Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.
2.
Applied Technology Council (ATC). (1996b). “NEHRP commentary on the guidelines for seismic rehabilitation of buildings—ballot draft FEMA 274.” Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.
3.
Bazzurro, P., and Cornell, C. A.(1994). “Seismic hazard analysis of non-linear structures. I: Methodology. II: Applications.”J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 120(11), 3320–3365.
4.
Benjamin, J. R., and Cornell, C. A. (1970). Probability, statistics, and decision for civil engineers. McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., New York.
5.
Bertero, R. D., and Bertero, V. V. (1992). “Tall reinforced concrete buildings: Conceptual earthquake-resistant design methodology.”Rep. No. UCB/EERC-92/16, Earthquake Engrg. Res. Ctr., University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
6.
Bertero, V. V., and Bertero, R. D. (1994). “Formulation and application of a conceptual code procedure for earthquake-resistant design of building structures.”Proc. 5th U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., II, 391–400, Chicago, Ill.
7.
Bertero, V. V. (1996). “The need for multi-level seismic design criteria.”Proc. 11th World Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Acapulco, Mexico, Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, U.K.
8.
Collins, K. R., Wen, Y. K., and Foutch, D. A. (1995). “Investigation of alternative seismic design procedures for standard buildings.”Rep. No. UILU-ENG-95-2003, Structural Research Series No. 600, University of Illinois at Urbana, Champaign, Ill.
9.
Collins, K. R., Wen, Y. K., and Foutch, D. A.(1996a). “Dual-level design: a reliability-based methodology.”Earthquake Engrg. and Struct. Dyn., 25(12), 1433–1467.
10.
Collins, K. R., Wen, Y. K., and Foutch, D. A. (1996b). “An alternative seismic design procedure for standard buildings.”Proc. 11th World Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Acapulco, Mexico, Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, U.K., Paper No. 612.
11.
Cornell, C. A. (1994). “Risk based structural design.”Proc. Symp. on Risk Analysis, Dept. of Civil Engrg., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., 37–47.
12.
Cornell, C. A. (1996a). “Calculating building seismic performance reliability: a basis for multi-level design norms.”Proc. 11th World Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Acapulco, Mexico, Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, U.K., Paper No. 2122.
13.
Cornell, C. A. (1996b). “Reliability-based earthquake-resistant design: the future.”Proc. 11th World Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Acapulco, Mexico, Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, U.K., Paper No. 2166.
14.
Cornell, C. A., and Sewell, R. T. (1987). “Non-linear behavior intensity measures in seismic hazard analysis.”Proc. Int. Workshop on Seismic Zonation, Guangzhou, China.
15.
Fischinger, M., and Fajfar, P. (1994). “Seismic force reduction factors.”Earthquake Engineering, A. Rutenberg, ed., A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 279–296.
16.
Hamburger, R. O. (1996). “Implementing performance-based seismic design in structural engineering practice.”Proc. 11th World Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Acapulco, Mexico, Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, U.K., Paper No. 2121.
17.
Hamburger, R. O. (1997). “FEMA-273 seismic rehabilitation guidelines: the next step—verification.”Proc. SMIP97—Sem. on Utilization of Strong-Motion Data, Los Angeles, Calif., 51–69.
18.
Han, S. W., and Wen, Y. K. (1994). “Method of reliability-based calibration of seismic structural parameters.”Rep. No. UILU-ENG-94-2016, Structural Research Series No. 595, University of Illinois at Urbana, Champaign, Ill.
19.
Han, S. W., and Wen, Y. K.(1997). “Method of reliability-based seismic design. I: Equivalent nonlinear systems. II: Calibration of code parameters.”J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 123(3), 256–270.
20.
Inoue, T. (1990). “Seismic hazard analysis of multi-degree-of-freedom structures.”RMS Rep. No. 8, Department of Civil Engineering, Reliability of Marine Structures, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
21.
Inoue, T., and Cornell, C. A. (1991). “Seismic hazard analysis of MDOF structures.”Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Application of Statistics and Probability in Civ. Engrg., I, 437–444, Mexico City.
22.
Krawinkler, H. (1996). “A few basic concepts for performance-based seismic design.”Proc. 11th World Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Acapulco, Mexico, Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, U.K., Paper No. 1133.
23.
Lawson, R. S. (1996). “Site-dependent inelastic seismic demands,” PhD dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
24.
Luco, N., and Cornell, C. A. (1998). “Effects of random connection fractures on the demands and reliability for a 3-story pre-Northridge SMRF structure.”Proc. 6th U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Seattle, Wash., Earthquake Engineering Research Inst., El Cerrito, Calif.
25.
Miranda, E. (1997). “Strength reduction factors in performance-based design.”Proc. EERC-CUREe Symp. in Honor of Vitelmo Bertero, Rep. No. UCB/EERC-97/05, University of California, Berkeley, Calif., 125–132.
26.
Miranda, E., and Bertero, V. V. (1994). “Reductions of seismic strength demands due to inelastic behavior.”Proc. 5th U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Chicago, Ill., II, 243–252.
27.
Moehle, J. P. (1996). “Displacement-based seismic design criteria.”Proc. 11th World Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Acapulco, Mexico, Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, U.K., Paper No. 2125.
28.
Nader, M. N., and Astaneh, A. (1994). “Proposed code procedures for seismic design of steel semi-rigid frames.”Proc. 5th U.S. National onf. on Earthquake Engrg., Chicago, Ill., II, 381–390.
29.
Nassar, A. A., and Krawinkler, H. (1991). “Seismic demands for SDOF and MDOF systems.”Rep. No. 95, Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
30.
Newmark, N. M., and Hall W. J. (1973). “Strength and ductility consideration in seismic design.”Building Practice for Disaster Mitigation, Building Science Series 46, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, Md., 209–236.
31.
Osteraas, J. D., and Krawinkler, H. (1990). “Strength and ductility considerations in seismic design.”Rep. No. 90, Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
32.
Rahnama, M., and Krawinkler, H. (1993). “Effects of soft soil and hysteresis model on seismic demands.”Rep. No. 108, Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
33.
Rahnama, M., and Krawinkler, H. (1994). “Amplification of seismic demands in linear and nonlinear soft soils.”Proc. 5th U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Chicago, Ill., II, 321–330.
34.
SEAOC. (1996). “Vision 2000—a framework for performance-based design.” Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, Calif.
35.
Seneviratna, G. D. P. K., and Krawinkler, H. (1994). “Strength and displacement demands for seismic design of structural walls.”Proc. 5th U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Chicago, Ill., II, 181–190.
36.
Seneviratna, G. D. P. K., and Krawinkler, H. (1996). “Modifications of seismic demands for MDOF systems.”Proc. 11th World Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Acapulco, Mexico, Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, U.K., Paper No. 2129.
37.
Seneviratna, G. D. P. K., and Krawinkler, H. (1997). “Evaluation of inelastic MDOF effects for seismic design.”Rep. No. 120, Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
38.
Sewell, R. T. (1989). “Damage effectiveness of earthquake ground motion: Characterizations based on the performance of structures and equipment,” PhD dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
39.
Shome, N., Cornell, C. A., Bazzurro, P., and Carballo, J. E.(1998). “Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear MDOF responses.”Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Res. Inst., 14(3), 469–500.
40.
Shome, N., and Cornell, C. A. (1998). “Normalization and scaling accelerograms for nonlinear structural analysis.”Proc. 6th U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Seattle, Wash., EERI.
41.
Somerville, P., Smith, N. F., Graves, R. W., and Abrahamson, N. A.(1997). “Modification of empirical strong motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity.”Seismological Research Letters, 68(1), 199–222.
42.
Takada, T., Hwang, H. H. M., and Shinozuka, M.(1988). “Response modification factor for multiple-degree-of-freedom systems.”Proc. 9th World Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, 5, 129–134.
43.
Takada, T., Ghosn, M., and Shinozuka, M. (1989). “Response modification factor for buildings and bridges.”Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Struct. Safety and Reliability, ICOS-SAR '89, San Francisco, Calif.
44.
Uang, C.-M.(1991). “Establishing R (or Rw) and Cd factors for building seismic provisions.”J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 117(1), 19–28.
45.
Wen, Y. K.(1995). “Building reliability and code calibration.”Earthquake Spectra, EERI, 11(2), 269–296.
46.
Wen, Y. K., Foutch, D. A., Eliopoulos, D., and Yu, C.-Y. (1995). “Seismic reliability of current code procedures for steel buildings.”Proc. 5th U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Chicago, Ill., IV, 417–426.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 124 • Issue 11 • November 1998
Pages: 1281 - 1289
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Published online: Nov 1, 1998
Published in print: Nov 1998
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.