DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparison of the USA, China and Japan Seismic Design Procedures

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparison of the USA, China and Japan Seismic Design Procedures Comparison of the USA, China and Japan Seismic Design Procedures Guangren Yu1, M. ASCE and Gary Y.K. Chock2, F. ASCE 1Structural Engineer, Martin & Chock, Inc., 1132 Bishop Street, Suite 1550, Honolulu, HI 96813 2President, Martin & Chock, Inc., 1132 Bishop Street, Suite 1550, Honolulu, HI 96813 ABSTRACT This paper presents a comparison of the current seismic design procedures in the United States, China and Japan. The seismic design practices in the three countries are compared by focusing on issues such as (1) design ground motion; (2) classification of building structures; (3) soil/site classification; (4) design response spectrum; (5) base shear calculation; (5) analysis procedures; and (6) drift control and deflection. Tables and diagrams are presented to illustrate the differences and similarities of methodologies utilized by the three countries in dealing with these common seismic design considerations. INTRODUCTION In the U.S., the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) is the currently adopted building code for most states. The IBC references American Society of Civil Engineering Standard 7, Minimum Design Loads for Building and Other Structures (ASCE, 2010) and other material-specific codes as its seismic design provisions including some amendments or modifications. Unlike the IBC that references other standards as seismic provisions, the Chinese Code for Seismic Design of Buildings is a self-contained document that includes almost all the necessary seismic design requirements for building structures. The current seismic code in China is the Code for Seismic Design of Buildings GB 50011- 2010. In Japan the seismic design requirements are specified in the Building Standard Law of Japan which applies to all buildings throughout the country. Since the first seismic code was introduced in Japan in 1924, the Japanese seismic design provisions were substantially revised in 1981 and 2000 (Kuramoto, 2006). The major revision in 1981 was the introduction of a two-phase seismic design procedure. Performance- based seismic methodologies and requirements were included in the 2000 version Japanese seismic code, but at the same time the previous seismic design provisions were kept as an alternative. Since the prescriptive seismic provisions revised in 1981 are still normally used in design offices in Japan, the paper will compare the 1981 Japanese seismic design provisions. DESIGN GROUND MOTION In the ASCE 7-10 seismic provisions, ground motion hazards are defined in terms of the risk-targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER). For most regions of the U.S., the MCE is defined with a uniform hazard probability of exceedance of 2 percent in 50 years (return period of about 2500 years). In regions of highest seismicity, such as coastal California (where the seismic hazard is typically controlled by characteristic large-magnitude events occurring on a limited number of well- defined fault systems), the MCE is calculated by multiplying the median estimate of ground motion resulting from the characteristic event by 1.5. The MCE ground motion parameters are then adjusted such that a 1% of risk of collapse in a 50-year period is provided for a generic building. The MCER is mapped in terms of the spectral acceleration at short period (0.2 second), Ss and at 1 second, S1, for Class B sites, which are firm rock sites. For sites other than Site B, two coefficients, Fa and Fv are used to modify the Ss and S1 values. The MCER spectral response accelerations adjusted for Site Class effects are designated SMS (=FaSS) and SM1 (=FvS1), respectively, for short-period and 1-second-period response. The design ground motion was selected at a ground shaking level that is 2/3 of the MCER ground motion. Accordingly, two additional parameters, SDS (= 2/3SMS) and SD1 (=2/3SM1), are used to define the acceleration spectrum for the design level event (Chock, 2010). In the Chinese seismic code, the expected performance of a structure is conceptually defined at three levels of seismic hazard: frequent earthquakes, moderate earthquakes and rare earthquakes. Table 1 gives the probabilistic definitions of these three levels of seismic hazard. Seismic hazards in China are defined for the “moderate earthquake” at a uniform 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. The seismic hazards, in terms of Seismic Peak Ground Acceleration and Characteristic Period of Response Spectrum (Tg) are specified in Seismic Ground Motion Parameter Zoning Maps of China GB 18306-2001 (CEA, 2001). This standard includes two maps. The first map is the zoning map of peak ground acceleration with 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years using a seven-level grading system, i.e., < 0.05g, 0.05g, 0.1g, 0.15g, 0.20g, 0.30g, and ≥0.40g. The other map is the Characteristic Period (Tg) zoning map which has three zones or three Seismic Groups in which the first group is defined as Tg = 0.35s, the second group as Tg = 0.40s, and the third group as Tg = 0.45s, all based on a reference Site Class II (medium firm). The Characteristic Period (Tg) has to be adjusted based on the actual site class. Instead of the peak ground acceleration map, Seismic Intensity is used for design purposes, and it is determined by the peak ground acceleration as shown in Table 2. The Seismic Intensity level used for design is to be adjusted based on building types and site classes (Yu et al. 2010). The Appendix of the Chinese Seismic Design Code GB50011-2010 also provides a Tabulation of Seismic Intensity, PGA and Seismic Group for all administrative districts (county or above). Table 1 Quantified Definition of the Three-Level Hazards - China Quantified definition of the hazard Level of seismic hazard Probability of exceedance Return period (years) during 50 years Frequent earthquake 63% 50 Moderate earthquake 10% 475 Rare earthquake 2% - 3% 1640 - 2475 Table 2 Seismic Intensity Designation and Peak Ground Acceleration (Return period =475yrs) - China Peak Ground Acceleration ≤ 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30 ≥ 0.40 (g) Seismic Intensity 6 7 8 9 In the Japanese seismic code, the expected performance of a structure is conceptually defined at two levels of seismic hazard: medium-level earthquakes and severe earthquakes with return periods of around 50 years and 500 years, respectively. Seismic hazard characteristics are established on the seismic zone (Z) and the characteristic period (Tc) of the site soil. In Japan the entire country is seismically active. Although the country is divided into three zones (A, B and C), there is minor differences among these zones with seismic zone factor ranging from 1.0 to 0.8. For most areas of Japan, seismic zone factor is either 1.0 or 0.9. The characteristic period (Tc) is shown in Table 3. Table 3 Soil Type Definitions and Characteristic Periods (Tc) - Japan Soil Definition T type c Rock, stiff sand or gravel, and other soils mainly from the Tertiary Era or earlier, or any other soil that has been Type I 0.4 shown by surveys or studies to have a natural period similar to soils mentioned above Type II Other than Type I and Type III 0.6 Alluvium mainly consisting of organic or other soft soil (including fill if any) with a depth of 30m or greater, reclaimed land from swamps or muddy shoal with a depth Type III of 3m or greater and less than 30 years have passed since 0.8 the reclamation, or any other soil that has been shown by surveys or studies to have a natural period similar to soils above CLASSIFICATION OF BUILDINGS The IBC classifies buildings and other structures as Risk Category from I to IV based on the nature of occupancy (Table 4). Importance factors used in the calculation of snow loads and seismic load effects are assigned to each structure based on its Risk Category. For wind loads, rather than importance factors, there are separate maps of wind speed with different hazard levels that are assigned to each Risk Category. Generally the value of importance factor increases with the importance of the facility. Risk Categories I and II have a seismic importance factor of 1.0. The seismic importance factors for Risk Category III and IV are 1.25 and 1.50, respectively. Structures assigned a greater seismic occupancy must be designed for larger seismic forces. As a result, these structures are expected to experience lower ductility demands than structures with lower occupancy importance factors and, thus sustain less damage. Risk Categories are also a basis for determining Seismic Design Categories, which are keys for establishing the detailed seismic design requirements for any structure. Table 4 The IBC Classification of Buildings and Other Structures - USA Risk Category Nature of Occupancy I Representing a low hazard to human life in the event of failure II Except those listed in other categories III Represent a substantial hazard to human life in the event of failure IV Designed as essential facilities The Chinese Standard for Classification of Seismic Protection of Building Constructions GB 50223-2008 (MHURDC 2008) classifies building structures as Building Type A to D with Type A as most important and Type D as less important (Table 5). There is no occupancy importance factor in Chinese code. Instead, the seismic design intensity should be adjusted according to the function of the building structure (Yu et al. 2010). Table 5 Chinese Standard for Classification of Seismic Protection of Building Constructions - China Building Type Description A (Extremely Special facilities related to national security or causing secondary important) disasters in the event of failure. Facilities designed to be functional during and after earthquake or B (Very important) building representing a substantial hazard to human life. C (Important) Those not listed in other types.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Seismic Acceleration and Displacement Demand Profiles of Non-Structural Elements in Hospital Buildings
    buildings Article Seismic Acceleration and Displacement Demand Profiles of Non-Structural Elements in Hospital Buildings Giammaria Gabbianelli 1 , Daniele Perrone 1,2,* , Emanuele Brunesi 3 and Ricardo Monteiro 1 1 University School for Advanced Studies IUSS Pavia, 27100 Pavia, Italy; [email protected] (G.G.); [email protected] (R.M.) 2 Department of Engineering for Innovation, University of Salento, 73100 Lecce, Italy 3 European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering (EUCENTRE), 27100 Pavia, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 23 October 2020; Accepted: 11 December 2020; Published: 15 December 2020 Abstract: The importance of non-structural elements in performance-based seismic design of buildings is presently widely recognized. These elements may significantly affect the functionality of buildings even for low seismic intensities, in particular for the case of critical facilities, such as hospital buildings. One of the most important issues to deal with in the seismic performance assessment of non-structural elements is the definition of the seismic demand. This paper investigates the seismic demand to which the non-structural elements of a case-study hospital building located in a medium–high seismicity region in Italy, are prone. The seismic demand is evaluated for two seismic intensities that correspond to the definition of serviceability limit states, according to Italian and European design and assessment guidelines. Peak floor accelerations, interstorey drifts, absolute acceleration, and relative displacement floor response spectra are estimated through nonlinear time–history analyses. The absolute acceleration floor response spectra are then compared with those obtained from simplified code formulations, highlighting the main shortcomings surrounding the practical application of performance-based seismic design of non-structural elements.
    [Show full text]
  • Prediction of Spectral Acceleration Response Ordinates Based on PGA Attenuation
    Prediction of Spectral Acceleration Response Ordinates Based on PGA Attenuation a),c) b),c) Vladimir Graizer, M.EERI, and Erol Kalkan, M.EERI Developed herein is a new peak ground acceleration (PGA)-based predictive model for 5% damped pseudospectral acceleration (SA) ordinates of free-field horizontal component of ground motion from shallow-crustal earthquakes. The predictive model of ground motion spectral shape (i.e., normalized spectrum) is generated as a continuous function of few parameters. The proposed model eliminates the classical exhausted matrix of estimator coefficients, and provides significant ease in its implementation. It is structured on the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) database with a number of additions from recent Californian events including 2003 San Simeon and 2004 Parkfield earthquakes. A unique feature of the model is its new functional form explicitly integrating PGA as a scaling factor. The spectral shape model is parameterized within an approximation function using moment magnitude, closest distance to the fault (fault distance) and VS30 (average shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 m) as independent variables. Mean values of its estimator coefficients were computed by fitting an approximation function to spectral shape of each record using robust nonlinear optimization. Proposed spectral shape model is independent of the PGA attenuation, allowing utilization of various PGA attenuation relations to estimate the response spectrum of earthquake recordings. ͓DOI: 10.1193/1.3043904͔ INTRODUCTION Since it was first introduced by Biot (1933) and later conveyed to engineering appli- cations by Housner (1959) and Newmark et al. (1973), the ground motion response spectrum has often been utilized for purposes of recognizing the significant characteris- tics of accelerograms and evaluating the response of structures to earthquake ground shaking.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter R20 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
    FERC Engineering Guidelines Risk-Informed Decision Making Chapter R20 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Chapter 20, Seismic Hazard Analysis 2014 DRAFT Table of Contents Chapter R20 – Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis .................................................. - 1 - R20.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................. - 1 - R20.2 Introduction ....................................................................................................... - 2 - R20.2.1 General Concepts ....................................................................................... - 2 - R20.2.2 Probabilistic vs. Deterministic Approach .................................................. - 2 - R20.2.3 Consistency of Seismic Loading Criteria ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. R20.2.4 PSHA Process ............................................................................................ - 3 - R20.2.5 Response Spectra Used for Fragility Analysis ........................................... - 4 - R20.2.6 Selecting Appropriate Seismic Loading..................................................... - 5 - R20.3 PSHA Data Requirements ................................................................................. - 5 - R20.3.1 PSHA Inputs ............................................................................................... - 5 - R20.3.2 General Guide on PSHA Data Collection .................................................. - 6 - R20.4 Seismic Source Identification ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • U. S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey
    U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY USGS SPECTRAL RESPONSE MAPS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH SEISMIC DESIGN FORCES IN BUILDING CODES OPEN-FILE REPORT 95-596 1995 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Any use of trade, product or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. COVER: The zone type map is based on the 0.3 sec spectral response acceleration with a 10 percent chance of being exceeded in 50 year. Contours are based on Figure B1 in this report. Each zonal increase in darkness indicates a factor two increase in earthquake demand. The lightest shade indicates a demand < 5% g. The next shade is for demand > 10% g. Subsequent shades are for > 20% g, > 40% g, and > 80% g respectively. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY USGS SPECTRAL RESPONSE MAPS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH SEISMIC DESIGN FORCES IN BUILDING CODES by E. V. Leyendecker1 , D. M. Perkins2, S. T. Algermissen3, P. C. Thenhaus4, and S. L. Hanson5 OPEN-FILE REPORT 95-596 1995 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Any use of trade, product or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 1 Research Civil Engineer, U.S. Geological Survey, MS 966, Box 25046, DFC, Denver, CO, 80225 2 Geophysicist, U.S. Geological Survey, MS 966, Box 25046, DFC, Denver, CO, 80225 3 Associate and Senior Consultant, EQE International, 2942 Evergreen Parkway, Suite 302, Evergreen, CO, 80439 (with the U.
    [Show full text]
  • SEISMIC ANALYSIS of SLIDING STRUCTURES BROCHARD D.- GANTENBEIN F. CEA Centre D'etudes Nucléaires De Saclay, 91
    n 9 COMMISSARIAT A L'ENERGIE ATOMIQUE CENTRE D1ETUDES NUCLEAIRES DE 5ACLAY CEA-CONF —9990 Service de Documentation F9II9I GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX Rl SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF SLIDING STRUCTURES BROCHARD D.- GANTENBEIN F. CEA Centre d'Etudes Nucléaires de Saclay, 91 - Gif-sur-Yvette (FR). Dept. d'Etudes Mécaniques et Thermiques Communication présentée à : SMIRT 10.' International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology Anaheim, CA (US) 14-18 Aug 1989 SEISHIC ANALYSIS OF SLIDING STRUCTURES D. Brochard, F. Gantenbein C.E.A.-C.E.N. Saclay - DEHT/SMTS/EHSI 91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex 1. INTRODUCTION To lirait the seism effects, structures may be base isolated. A sliding system located between the structure and the support allows differential motion between them. The aim of this paper is the presentation of the method to calculate the res- ponse of the structure when the structure is represented by its elgenmodes, and the sliding phenomenon by the Coulomb friction model. Finally, an application to a simple structure shows the influence on the response of the main parameters (friction coefficient, stiffness,...). 2. COULOMB FRICTION HODEL Let us consider a stiff mass, layed on an horizontal support and submitted to an external force Fe (parallel to the support). When Fg is smaller than a limit force ? p there is no differential motion between the support and the mass and the friction force balances the external force. The limit force is written: Fj1 = \x Fn where \i is the friction coefficient and Fn the modulus of the normal force applied by the mass to the support (in this case, Fn is equal to the weight of the mass).
    [Show full text]
  • PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION WASHINGTON PARK RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENTS Portland, Oregon
    APPENDIX H PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION WASHINGTON PARK RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENTS Portland, Oregon REPORT July 2011 CORNFORTH Black & Veatch CONSULTANTS APPENDIX H Report to: Portland Water Bureau 1120 SW 5th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204-1926 and Black and Veatch 5885 Meadows Road, Suite 700 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION WASHINGTON PARK RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENTS PORTLAND, OREGON July 2011 Submitted by: Cornforth Consultants, Inc. 10250 SW Greenburg Road, Suite 111 Portland, OR 97223 APPENDIX H 2114 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. iv 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 General .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Site and Project Background ......................................................................................... 1 1.3 Scope of Work .............................................................................................................. 1 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 3 2.1 General .......................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Companion Studies ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Deriving SS and S1 Parameters from PGA Maps
    Deriving SS and S1 Parameters from PGA Maps Z.A. Lubkowski, & B. Aluisi Arup, London, United Kingdom SUMMARY It has been recognised by SHARE (Seismic Hazard Harmonization in Europe) that the code requirement of multiple design levels, such as those required by EN 1473, PIANC etc, and the client’s needs for performance based seismic design, require many of the existing 475 year return period peak ground acceleration (PGA) hazard maps to be updated. This requirement should lead to the update of nationally determined Eurocode 8 code maps. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) already provide a useful web based tool, which defines PGA, SS and S1 coefficients for a return period of 2475 years from the Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program (GSHAP) 475 year PGA maps and some other relevant resources. However, it has been shown, for example by the uses of Type 1 and Type 2 spectra in Eurocode 8, that the ratio between PGA and spectral ordinates is dependent on the predominant size of earthquakes in a given region. Lubkowski (2010) provided a methodology for converting 475 year PGA values to 2475 year values based on the level of seismicity. This paper will extend that study to provide a simple methodology to define the SS and S1 coefficients for a return period of 2475 years. Keywords: seismic hazard, code maps, design criteria 1. INTRODUCTION It has been recognised by SHARE (Seismic Hazard Harmonization in Europe) that the code requirement of multiple design levels, such as those required by EN 1473, PIANC etc, and the client’s needs for performance based seismic design, require many of the existing 475 year return period peak ground acceleration (PGA) hazard maps to be updated.
    [Show full text]
  • Application of Response Spectrum Analysis in Historical Buildings
    Transactions on the Built Environment vol 15, © 1995 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 Application of response spectrum analysis in historical buildings M.E. Stavroulaki, B. Leftheris Institute of Applied Mechanics, Department of Engineering Greece Abstract The basic concepts and assumptions used in the response spectrum analysis method is reviewed in this paper with respect to its application in historical buildings. More specifically, the methodology of modeling and the applica- tion of the response spectrum analysis is described and discussed through our work with the Lighthouse at the Venetian Harbor of Chania. 1 Introduction The main cause of damage in building structures during an earthquake is usually their response to ground induced motions. In order to evaluate the behaviour of the structure for this type of loading condition, the princip- les of structural dynamics must be applied to determine the stresses and deflections generated in the structure. The dynamic characteristics of the building is established by its natu- ral frequencies, modes and damping: the analysis is based on linear-elastic behaviour of materials and the ground input motion is a smoothed de- sign spectrum in order to calculate the maximum values of the structural response. In this work we describe the application of response spectrum analysis to the Lighthouse at the Venetian Harbour of Chania. We use the example, however, to discuss the requirements of response spectrum analy- sis for historical buildings in general. The Lighthouse is a masonry structure built by the Egyptians in 1838. Transactions on the Built Environment vol 15, © 1995 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 94 Dynamics, Repairs & Restoration 2 Finite Element modeling of masonry structures The finite element method of analysis requires the selection of an appro- priate model that would sufficiently represent the real structure.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 18: Earthquake-Response Spectra
    53/58:153 Lecture 18 Fundamental of Vibration ______________________________________________________________________________ Lecture 18: Earthquake-Response Spectra Reading materials: Sections 6.4, and 6.5 1. Introduction The most direct description of an earthquake motion in time domain is provided by accelerograms that are recorded by instruments called Strong Motion Accelerographs. The accelerograph records three orthogonal components of ground acceleration at a certain location. The peak ground acceleration, duration, and frequency content of earthquake can be obtained from an accelerograms. An accelerogram can be integrated to obtain the time variations of the ground velocity and ground displacement. A response spectrum is used to provide the most descriptive representation of the influence of a given earthquake on a structure or machine. - 1 - 53/58:153 Lecture 18 Fundamental of Vibration ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Structures subject to earthquake It is similar to a vehicle moving on the ground. In both cases there is relative movement between the vibrating system (structures or machines) and the ground. ug(t) is the ground motion, while u(t) is the motion of the mass relative to ground. If the ground acceleration from an earthquake is known, the response of the structure can be computed via using the Newmark’s method. Example: determine the following structure’s response to the 1940 El Centro earthquake. 2% damping. - 2 - 53/58:153 Lecture 18 Fundamental of Vibration ______________________________________________________________________________ 1940 EL Centro, CA earthquake Only the bracing members resist the lateral load. Considering only the tension brace. - 3 - 53/58:153 Lecture 18 Fundamental of Vibration ______________________________________________________________________________ Neglecting the self weight of the members, the mass of the equivalent spring-mass system is equal to the total dead load.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report 2019 Update to the Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Analyses and Development of Seismic Design Ground Motions for Stanford University
    Final Report 2019 Update to the Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Analyses and Development of Seismic Design Ground Motions for Stanford University Prepared for: Stanford University Land, Buildings and Real Estate 415 Broadway, Third Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 Prepared by: Lettis Consultants International, Inc. Patricia Thomas and Ivan Wong 1000 Burnett Ave., Suite 350 Concord, CA 94520 and Pacific Engineering and Analysis Walt Silva and Robert Darragh 856 Seaview Dr. El Cerrito, CA 94530 15 January 2020 15 January 2020 Ms. Michelle DeWan Associate Director, Project Manager Stanford University Land, Buildings and Real Estate Redwood City, CA 94063 Mr. Harry Jones, II, SE Stanford Seismic Advisory Committee DCI Engineers 131 17th St., Suite 605 Denver, CO 80202 SUBJECT: 2019 Update of the Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Analyses and Seismic Design Ground Motions for Stanford University, Stanford, California LCI Project No. 1834.0000 Dear Ms. DeWan and Mr. Jones, Lettis Consultants International, Inc. (LCI) is pleased to submit this report that presents our final site-specific seismic hazard results and seismic design ground motions for the Stanford campus. It has been our pleasure to work with the Stanford Seismic Advisory Committee and Stanford University on this project. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or comments that you may have regarding this report. You may contact us directly at (925) 482- 0360. Respectfully, Patricia Thomas, Ph.D., Senior Engineering Seismologist [email protected] Ivan Wong, Senior Principal
    [Show full text]
  • Multiple-Support Response Spectrum Analysis of the Golden Gate Bridge
    "11111111111111111111111111111 PB93-221752 REPORT NO. UCB/EERC-93/05 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER MAY 1993 MULTIPLE-SUPPORT RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS OF THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE by YUTAKA NAKAMURA ARMEN DER KIUREGHIAN DAVID L1U Report to the National Science Foundation -t~.l& T~ .- COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY Reproduced by: National Tectmcial Information Servjce u.s. Department ofComnrrce Springfield, VA 22161 For sale by the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Spring­ field, Virginia 22161 See back of report for up to date listing of EERC reports. DISCLAIMER Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley. ,..", -101~ ~_ -------,r------------------,--------r-- - REPORT DOCUMENTATION IL REPORT NO. I%. 3. 1111111111111111111111111111111 PAGE NS F/ ENG-93001 PB93-221752 --- :.. Title ancl Subtitte 50. Report Data "Multiple-Support Response Spectrum Anaiysis of the Golden Gate May 1993 Bridge" T .............~\--------------------------------·~-L-....-fOi-"olnc--o-rp-n-ization--Rept.--No-.---t Yutaka Nakamura, Armen Der Kiureghian, and David Liu UCB/EERC~93/05 Earthquake Engineering Research Center University of California, Berkeley u. eomr.ct(Cl or Gnll.t(G) ...... 1301 So. 46th Street (C) Richmond, Calif. 94804 (G) BCS-9011112 I%. Sponsorinc Orpnlzatioft N_ and Add..... 13. Type 01 R~ & Period ea.-.d National Science Foundation 1800 G.Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20550 15. Su~ryNot.. 16. Abattac:t (Umlt: 200 wonts) The newly developed Multiple-Support Response Spectrum (MSRS) method is reviewed and applied to analysis of the Golden Gate Bridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 12 – Geotechnical Seismic Analysis
    Chapter 12 GEOTECHNICAL SEISMIC ANALYSIS GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN MANUAL January 2019 Geotechnical Design Manual GEOTECHNICAL SEISMIC ANALYSIS Table of Contents Section Page 12.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 12-1 12.2 Geotechnical Seismic Analysis ....................................................................... 12-1 12.3 Dynamic Soil Properties.................................................................................. 12-2 12.3.1 Soil Properties ..................................................................................... 12-2 12.3.2 Site Stiffness ....................................................................................... 12-2 12.3.3 Equivalent Uniform Soil Profile Period and Stiffness ........................... 12-3 12.3.4 V*s,H Variation Along a Project Site ...................................................... 12-5 12.3.5 South Carolina Reference V*s,H ........................................................... 12-6 12.4 Project Site Classification ............................................................................... 12-7 12.5 Depth-To-Motion Effects On Site Class and Site Factors ................................ 12-9 12.6 SC Seismic Hazard Analysis .......................................................................... 12-9 12.7 Acceleration Response Spectrum ................................................................. 12-10 12.7.1 Effects of Rock Stiffness WNA vs. ENA ...........................................
    [Show full text]