1997
DOI: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(1997)123:4(423)
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Damage-Controlled Structures. I: Preliminary Design Methodology for Seismically Active Regions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
31
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 74 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
1
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A structure is considered to resist an earthquake ground motion provided that the energy input to the structure from the earthquake is lower than its energy absorption capacity. Following this, the EBD concept as well as the determination of elastic and/or hysteretic energy distributions were examined for MDOF systems (Berg and Thomaides, 1960;Penzien, 1960;Zahrah and Hall, 1982;Akiyama, 1985;Nakamura and Yamane, 1986;Léger and Dussault, 1992;Rodriguez, 1994;Nakashima et al, 1996;Connor et al, 1997). Chou and Uang (2003) presented a procedure for the distribution of seismic energy demand over the floors of a MDOF system solely by modal superposition of energy shapes, which are established from a static pushover analysis.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A structure is considered to resist an earthquake ground motion provided that the energy input to the structure from the earthquake is lower than its energy absorption capacity. Following this, the EBD concept as well as the determination of elastic and/or hysteretic energy distributions were examined for MDOF systems (Berg and Thomaides, 1960;Penzien, 1960;Zahrah and Hall, 1982;Akiyama, 1985;Nakamura and Yamane, 1986;Léger and Dussault, 1992;Rodriguez, 1994;Nakashima et al, 1996;Connor et al, 1997). Chou and Uang (2003) presented a procedure for the distribution of seismic energy demand over the floors of a MDOF system solely by modal superposition of energy shapes, which are established from a static pushover analysis.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One alternative that has attracted the focus of current investigations is the use of structural fuses. This structural fuse retrofit concept consists of integrating replaceable components in the main structural system in such a way to restrict the damage undergoing for the primary structure after a damaging earthquake (Connor et al 1997). The replaceable elements are designed to take the earthquakeinduced energy and dissipate it through nonlinear hysteretic behavior, meanwhile, the remaining structure is expected to behave elastically.…”
Section: Structural Fuse Retrofit Strategymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Compared with the concept of damage-reduction seismic design, recently related important seismic design ideas, such as structural control design (Housner et al, 1997;Soong and Spencer, 2002), damage-controlled design (Wada et al, 1992;Wada and Huang, 1995;Connor et al, 1997), and the structural fuse (Midorikawa et al, 2006;Fortney et al, 2007;Vargas and Bruneau, 2009;Wada et al, 2009;El-Bahey and Bruneau, 2011;Deierlein et al, 2011) or other replaceable elements (Shen et al, 2011) are emerging trends in performance based seismic design. Wada et al (1992) fi rst proposed the strategy of damage-controlled design, integrating structural system and energy transformation devices in a way so that the damage is restricted to a specifi c set of elements that can be readily repaired.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%