Response spectrum analysis of structures subjected to spatially varying motions

Berrah, M.K.; Kausel, Eduardo

doi:10.1002/eqe.4290210601

Cited by 66 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The amplitudes of the spectrum SDC(¹, , , ) can be computed directly by evaluating the relative response, u(t), via the Duhamel's integral,\, multiplying it by and then adding the contribution from strain, expressed in terms of the ground velocity, v(t), and the ground acceleration, a(t) (see equation (36)). Alternatively, SDC(¹, , , ) can be computed from empirical scaling equations\ for the classical relative spectral displacement, SD(¹, ), and for the peak ground velocity and acceleration, v and a , via equation (39).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response Spectra for Differential Motion of Columns

Trifunac

Todorovska

1997

Earthquake Engng. Struct. Dyn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThe validity of the response spectrum concept for determining loads in structures excited by differential earthquake ground motion is examined. It is shown that the common definition of response spectrum for synchronous ground motion can be reconciled to remain valid in cases when the columns of extended structures experience different motions. Then, a relative displacement response spectrum for design of first-storey columns, SDC(¹, , , ), is defined. In addition to natural period, ¹, and fraction of critical damping, , this spectrum depends also on the 'travel time', (of the waves in the soil over distances about one half width, or length of the structure), and on a factor, , specifying the relative displacement of the first floor. It is shown how this spectrum can be determined using existing empirical scaling equations for relative displacement spectra SD(¹, ) and for peak velocity and peak acceleration of strong ground motion. These new spectra are illustrated for a horizontal component of a record in the near field of the 1994 Northridge earthquake. The results show that differential motions are more important for short period (stiff ) than for longer period (flexible) structures, and for structures founded on softer ground (small shear wave velocity).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response Spectra for Differential Motion of Columns

Trifunac

Todorovska

1997

Earthquake Engng. Struct. Dyn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reviewing the literature, the most common variants of seismic risk assessment can be identified in four categories as indicated in Table 2. Klugel (2006) High importance facility Seismo-tectonic data Konakli &Kiureghia(2011) Specific studies Detailed Structural Stochastic Berrah & Kausel (1992) II Probablistic…”

Section: Classification Of Seismic Risk Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic risk management: A system-based perspective

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The deployment of seismic risk management is fraught with issues of complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty which pose critical challenges in assessing, modelling and management. The complexity of earthquake impacts and the uncertain nature of information necessitate establishing a risk management system to address the risk of many the effects of seismic events in a reliable and realistic way. This study was launched to review and criticize appropriate risk assessment methods for different seismic applications focusing on general characteristics from a systems perspective. The outcome of this study demonstrates the importance of a system perspective, providing a deeper insight into the background characteristics and the potential challenges involved within seismic risk management. This allows users to compare various systems and to choose the most appropriate approach according to the scope, size, accuracy and complexity of the application.

show abstract

“…Es is the rigid body displacement vector associated with the active direction of support motion. Any response quantity z(t) linearly related to the modal co-ordinates can be given by equation (1). Let…”

Section: Derivation Of the Modal Combination Rulementioning

confidence: 99%

A modal combination rule for spatially varying seismic motions

Berrah

Kausel

1993

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThe spatial variability of seismic ground motion is an important aspect for the earthquake resistant design of extended facilities. A modified response spectrum model, which addresses the problem of multiply supported structures subjected to imperfectly correlated seismic excitations, has already been developed (see References 1 and 2). The present paper proposes a modal combination rule for the case of non-uniform seismic input, which would be used together with the modified response spectrum model in order to compute physical responses. This rule, which accounts for modal cross-correlations, is an extension to an existing rule for the case of uniform seismic motions. It modifies the existing modal cross-correlation coefficients through a correction factor which depends on structural properties and on the characteristics of the wave propagation phenomenon. Finally, some practical considerations on the theoretical development are addressed. They aim at suggesting reasonable simplifications which render the modal combination rule more appealing for engineering purposes. The proposed practical combination rule is validated through a numerical experiment which also characterizes the effect of non-uniform seismic input on modal cross-correlation.

show abstract

Response spectrum analysis of structures subjected to spatially varying motions

Cited by 66 publications

References 3 publications

Response Spectra for Differential Motion of Columns

Response Spectra for Differential Motion of Columns

Seismic risk management: A system-based perspective

A modal combination rule for spatially varying seismic motions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About