Abstract
The process of structural design ultimately hinges upon the selection of the top alternative designs from a group of viable choices, ideally choosing the one that best satisfies the requirements, as set by codes or guidelines. Comparing structural configurations to find the best candidate has thus remained a favorite subject of researchers and engineers alike, especially in the case of seismic loads. With the emergence of performance-based earthquake engineering, such comparisons now need to be performed on the basis of the seismic performance, preferably at several limit-states. Such a direct evaluation can become cumbersome, requiring seismic hazard information. Therefore, shortcuts and simpler techniques have been introduced that are generally based on the concept of system fragility, as estimated through the various methods of structural analysis. Still, there is no general consensus on the metrics that can be used for such an evaluation; some researchers adopt force or displacement response quantities derived from static or dynamic methods, while others prefer to compare capacities in terms of intensity or response measures. In order to even out the field, we perform a comparative evaluation of the available choices and point out the pros and cons of each, showing some of the common fallacies that plague the results of such comparisons.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Al-Ali AAK, Krawinkler H (1998) Effects of vertical irregularities on seismic behaviour of building structures. Report No. 130, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford
ASCE (2007) Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, ASCE standard ASCE/SEI 41–06. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston
ATC (2005) Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. Report No. FEMA-440, prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC
ATC (2009) Effects of strength and stiffness degradation on seismic response. Report No. FEMA-P440A, prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC
Baker JW, Cornell CA (2005) A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34:1193–1217
CEN (2005) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. EN 1998–3, European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels
Cornell CA, Krawinkler H (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center News 3(2). URL http://peer.berkeley.edu/news/2000spring/index.html
Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO, Foutch DA (2002) Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. J Struct Eng ASCE 128 (4): 526–533
De Luca F, Vamvatsikos D, Iervolino I (2011) Near-optimal bilinear fit of capacity curves for equivalent SDOF analysis. Proceedings of the CompDyn 2011 conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, Corfu
Dolšek M, Fajfar P (2005) Simplified non-linear seismic analysis of infilled reinforced concrete frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(1):49–66
Dolšek M, Fajfar P (2008) The effect of masonry infills on the seismic response of a four storey reinforced concrete frame–a probabilistic assessment. Eng Struct 30:3186–3192
Ferracuti B, Pinho R, Savoia M, Francia R (2009) Verification of displacement-based adaptive pushover through multi-ground motion incremental dynamic analyses. Eng Struct 31: 1789–1799
Fragiadakis M, Vamvatsikos D, Papadrakakis M (2006) Evaluation of the influence of vertical irregularities on the seismic performance of a 9-storey steel frame. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(12):1489–1509
Huang Z, Foutch DA (2009) Effect of hysteresis type on drift limit for global collapse of moment frame structures under seismic loads. J Earthq Eng 13:939–964
Jalayer F, Cornell CA (2009) Alternative non-linear demand estimation methods for probability-based seismic assessments. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(8):951–1052
Lagaros ND, Fotis AD, Krikos SA (2006) Assessment of seismic design procedures based on the total cost. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35:1381–1401
Liao K-W, Wen Y-K, Foutch DA (2007) Evaluation of 3D steel moment frames under earthquake excitations. I. Model J Struct Eng ASCE 133(3):462–470
Luco N, Cornell CA (2007) Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthq Spectra 23(2):357–392
Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS (2001) Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings. Eng Struct 23:407–424
Pinho R, Casarotti C, Antoniou S (2007) A comparison of single-run pushover analysis techniques for seismic assessment of bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36:1347–1362
SAC/FEMA (2000) Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame buildings. Report No. FEMA-350, prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC
SEAOC Vision 2000 (1995) A framework of performance-based seismic engineering of buildings. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento
Tagawa H, MacRae G, Lowes L (2008) Probabilistic evaluation of seismic performance of 3-story 3D one- and two-way steel moment-frame structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37:681–696
Tothong P, Cornell CA (2008) Structural performance assessment under near-source pulse-like ground motions using advanced ground motion intensity measures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37:1013–1037
Vamvatsikos D (2009) Optimal multi-objective seismic design of a highway bridge by selective use of nonlinear static and dynamic analyses. Proceedings of the 9th international conference on structural safety and reliability (ICOSSAR), Osaka
Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514
Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2004) Applied incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Spectra 20(2):523–553
Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2005) Developing efficient scalar and vector intensity measures for IDA capacity estimation by incorporating elastic spectral shape information. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(13):1573–1600
Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2006) Direct estimation of the seismic demand and capacity of oscillators with multi-linear static pushovers through incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(9):1097–1117
Vamvatsikos D, Dolšek M (2011) Equivalent constant rates for performance-based assessment of ageing structures. Struct Saf 33(1):8–18
Vamvatsikos D, Fragiadakis M (2010) Incremental dynamic analysis for estimating seismic performance uncertainty and sensitivity. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39(2):141–163
Vamvatsikos D, Miranda E, Akkar S (2009) Estimating the dynamic instability of oscillators with non-trivial backbones. Proceedings of the COMPDYN2009 conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, Rhodes
Yang TY, Moehle J, Stojadinovic B, Der Kiureghian A (2009) Seismic performance evaluation of facilities: methodology and implementation. J Struct Eng ASCE 135(10):1146–1154
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vamvatsikos, D. (2011). Some Thoughts on Methods to Compare the Seismic Performance of Alternate Structural Designs. In: Dolšek, M. (eds) Protection of Built Environment Against Earthquakes. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1448-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1448-9_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1447-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1448-9
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)