Journal
EARTHQUAKE SPECTRA
Volume 32, Issue 3, Pages 1525-1543Publisher
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH INST
DOI: 10.1193/053115EQS081M
Keywords
-
Categories
Funding
- European Research Executive Agency via Marie Curie grant [PCIG09-GA-2011-293855]
- Department of Civil Protection
Ask authors/readers for more resources
The advantages and disadvantages of using scalar and vector ground motion intensity measures (IMs) are discussed for the local, story-level seismic response assessment of three-dimensional (3-D) buildings. Candidate IMs are spectral accelerations, at a single period (Sa) or averaged over a period range (Sa(avg)). Consistent scalar and vector probabilistic seismic hazard analysis results were derived for each IM, as described in the companion paper in this issue (Kohrangi et al. 2016). The response hazard curves were computed for three buildings with reinforced concrete infilled frames using the different IMs as predictors. Among the scalar IMs, Sa(avg) tends to be the best predictor of both floor accelerations and inter story drift ratios at practically any floor. However, there is an improvement in response estimation efficiency when employing vector IMs, specifically for 3-D buildings subjected to both horizontal components of ground motion. This improvement is shown to be most significant for a tall plan-asymmetric building.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available