Seismic Hazard Analysis of Nonlinear Structures. I: Methodology
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 120, Issue 11
Abstract
Conventional seismic hazard analysis methodology is generalized to estimate directly the annual seismic risk of exceeding a specified level of postelastic damage in real structures. The procedure makes use of empirical statistics of the nonlinear‐response‐based factor that is a measure of the damage potential of ground motions to multi‐degree‐of‐freedom structures. Using a two‐dimensional model of a jacket‐type offshore platform and a large sample of observed time histories, it is confirmed that (as for single DOF systems): (1) There is no significant dependence of the average of on magnitude and distance; and (2) its coefficient of variation is relatively small. These two facts make the method practical. They were confirmed for both local (member‐level) damage measures and global collapse, for variations in structure and foundation modeling, and for various durations. A companion paper presents applications to two large three‐dimensional, multi‐degree‐of‐freedom, nonlinear models of actual structures.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
“API recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms.” (1991). API RP 2A, 19th Ed., American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
2.
Bazzurro, P. (1993). “Seismic hazard analysis of nonlinear structures with application to jacket‐type offshore platforms,” Engineer's Degree thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
3.
Bazzurro, P., and Cornell, C. A. (1992). “Seismic risk: nonlinear MDOF structures.” Proc., 10th World Conf. of Earthquake Engrg., A. A. Balkerma, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1, 563–568.
4.
Bazzurro, P., and Cornell, C. A. (1994). “Seismic hazard analysis of nonlinear structures. II: applications.” J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 120(11), 3345–3365.
5.
Bertero, V. V. (1986). “Lessons learned from recent earthquakes and research and implications for earthquake‐resistant design of building structures in United States.” Rep. No. UCB/EERC 86‐03, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
6.
Cornell, C. A. (1968). “Engineering seismic risk analysis.” Bull. the Seismological Soc. of Am., 58(5), 1583–1606.
7.
Cornell, C. A., and Sewell, R. T. (1987). “Non‐linear‐behavior intensity measures in seismic hazard analysis.” Proc., Int. Seminar on Seismic Zonation, Guangzhou, China, December.
8.
Der Kiureghian, A., and Ang, A. H. S. (1975). “A line source model for seismic risk analysis.” Tech. Rep. UILU‐ENG‐75‐2023, University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill.
9.
Ghanaat, Y., and Clough, R. W. (1982). “Shaking table tests of a tubular frame model.” Rep. No. UCB/EERC 82‐02, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
10.
Hadidi‐Tamjed, H. (1987). “Statistical response of inelastic SDOF systems subjected to earthquakes,” PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
11.
Hwang, H., and Hsu, J. W. (1991). “A study of reliability‐based criteria for seismic design of reinforced concrete frame building.” Rep. No. NCEER‐91‐0023, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER), Buffalo, N.Y.
12.
Inoue, T. (1990). “Seismic hazard analysis of multi‐degree‐of‐freedom structures.” Rep. No. RMS‐8, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
13.
Inoue, T., and Cornell, C. A. (1991). “Seismic hazard analysis of MDOF structures.” Proc. ICASP, Instituto de Ingenieria, UNAM, Mexico City, Mexico.
14.
Iwan, W. D. (1980). “Estimating inelastic response spectra from elastic spectra.” Earthquake Engrg. and Struct. Dynamics, 8, 375–399.
15.
Jain, A. K., and Goel, S. C. (1978). “Hysteresis models for steel members subjected to cyclic buckling or cyclic end‐moments and buckling.” Rep. No. UMEE 78R6, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
16.
Joyner, W. B., and Boore, D. M. (1988). “Measurement, characterization, and prediction of strong ground motion.” Proc., Earthquake Engrg. and Soil Dynamics II, ASCE, New York, N.Y.
17.
Kanaan, A. E., and Powell, G. H. (1973). “General purpose computer program for inelastic dynamic response of plane structure.” Rep. No. EERC 73‐6, Earthquake Engrg. Res. Ctr., University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
18.
KARMA computer program, documentation, vol. 1‐V. ISEC Inc., San Francisco, Calif.
19.
Kennedy, R. P., et al. (1984). “Engineering characterization of ground motions—task I: effects of characteristics of free‐field motion on structural response.” NUREG/CR‐3805, Vol. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20.
McCann, M. W., and Reed, J. W. (1989). “Lower bound magnitude for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment.” Rep. NP‐6496, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif.
21.
McGuire, R. K., and Barnhard, T. P. (1979). “Four definitions of strong motion duration: their predictability and utility for seismic hazard analysis.” Open‐File Rep. 79‐1515, United States Geological Survey (USGS), Washington, D.C.
22.
Nasser, A. A., and Krawinkler, H. (1991). “Seismic demands for SDOF and MDOF systems.” Rep. No. 95, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
23.
Newmark, N. M., and Hall, W. J. (1982). “Earthquake spectra and design.” Engineering Monographs on Earthquake Criteria, Structural Design, and Strong Ground Motions, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), Oakland, Calif.
24.
Osteraas, J. D., and Krawinkler, H. (1990). “Strength and ductility considerations in seismic design.” Rep. No. 90, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
25.
Popov, E. P., Mahin, S. A., and Clough, R. W. (1985). “Inelastic response of tubular steel offshore towers.” J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 111(10), 2240–2258.
26.
Riddel, R., and Newmark, N. M. (1979). “Statistical analysis of the response on nonlinear systems subjected to earthquaking.” Tech. Rep. SRS 468, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill.
27.
Sewell, R. T. (1988). “Damage effectiveness of earthquake ground motion: characterizations based on the performance of structures and equipment,” PhD thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
28.
Sewell, R. T. (1992). “Effects of duration on structural response factors and on ground‐motion damageability.” Proc., SMIP'92, M. J. Huang, ed., California Department of Conservation, Sacramento, Calif.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 120 • Issue 11 • November 1994
Pages: 3320 - 3344
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jul 9, 1993
Published online: Nov 1, 1994
Published in print: Nov 1994
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.