5 visualizações

Enviado por hal9000_mark1

- How Buildings Twist During Earthquake
- Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis Selection Method Approaches
- Timber Design to Seismic
- hw3
- BAL-003-0_1b
- Ada 473252
- Exam Final
- Problem a 16
- Astm d7682
- A Better Measure of Relative Prediction Accuracy for Model Selection and Fitting Preprint JORS
- Earthquake Risk Assessment of Building Structures
- Hoskingetal_1985.pdf
- 037 software.pdf
- Jensen 1990
- Estimation1ans.pdf
- Exam C Syllabus
- Sea Oc Comp 082009
- Pacific EQ Engineering
- Exam C Formulas
- Weighted Distributions

Você está na página 1de 18

Published online 27 July 2007 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.736

On the estimation of hysteretic energy demands

for SDOF systems

Danny Arroyo

1, 2, ,

and Mario Ordaz

2

1

Departamento de Materiales, Universidad Aut onoma Metropolitana, Azcapotzalco Avenida San Pablo 180,

Colonia Reynosa Tamaulipas, M exico DF 02200, Mexico

2

Instituto de Ingeniera, Universidad Nacional Aut onoma de M exico, Avenida Universidad 300, Ciudad

Universitaria, Coyoac an, M exico DF 04510, Mexico

SUMMARY

Based on a statistical study of the dynamic response of single degree of freedom (SDOF) systems subjected

to earthquake ground motions, a rule to estimate hysteretic energy demands is proposed. Expressions for

elasticperfectly plastic, stiffness degrading and pinching SDOF systems were obtained. The proposed

rule does not explicitly depend on the period of the system; instead, it depends on the elastic pseudo-

acceleration and elastic velocity spectra. It is shown that the proposed rule can be applied to compute

hysteretic energy demands for systems located at different soil conditions. In addition, information about

scatter and bias of the proposed rule is also presented. Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 8 November 2006; Revised 12 April 2007; Accepted 17 June 2007

KEY WORDS: hysteretic energy; strong ground motion duration; constant ductility spectra; stiffness

degrading system

INTRODUCTION

Several researchers have included the effect of ground motion duration on the seismic design of

structures through the use of the energy approach [115]. Most of these studies have considered

that the damage on a structure subjected to earthquake ground motions can be related to the peak

displacement that the system undergoes and to the amount of hysteretic energy that the system

dissipates during a seismic event. Usually, these seismic demands are compared with the structural

supplies through the use of seismic damage indexes to assess the seismic behavior of structures.

In order to apply these methods in the seismic design of structures, it is necessary to have accurate

estimations of seismic demands and also of structural supplies.

Correspondence to: Danny Arroyo, Departamento de Materiales, Universidad Aut onoma Metropolitana, Azcapotzalco

Avenida San Pablo 180, Colonia Reynosa Tamaulipas, M exico DF 02200, Mexico.

E-mail: aresda@correo.azc.uam.mx

Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2366 D. ARROYO AND M. ORDAZ

Abundant research has been aimed at developing expressions to compute hysteretic energy

demands. In the following paragraphs, we discuss some of the related previous studies.

Fajfar and Vidic

Fajfar and Vidic [10] proposed the following expression to compute hysteretic energy demands

per unit of mass (E

Hj

) for bilinear single degree of freedom (SDOF) systems with 10% of strain

hardening:

E

Hj

=

_

j SA(T)

cR

j

(T)

_

2

(1)

where SA(T) is the pseudo-acceleration spectrum valued at the period of the system, T; j is the

maximum ductility demand; c is the circular frequency of the oscillator; R

j

(T) is the corresponding

strength-reduction factor and is given in the following equation:

=z

T

z

j

z

g

(2)

where

z

T

=

_

_

0.9 if TT

1

0.9 0.25

T T

1

T

2

T

if T

1

TT

2

0.65 if TT

2

(3)

T

1

=2

c

v

PGV

c

a

PGA

(4)

T

2

=2

c

d

PGD

c

v

PGV

(5)

z

j

=

(j 1)

c

j

j

(6)

z

g

=

_

_

a

2

dt

PGAPGV

_

c

g

(7)

where PGA, PGV and PGD are the peak ground acceleration, velocity and displacement, respec-

tively. T

1

and T

2

are the limits between the short and medium period range and between the medium

and large period range of the NewmarkHall spectrum, respectively. For bilinear non-degrading sys-

tems with damping proportional to the instantaneous stiffness, c

j

=0.67, c

g

=0.4, c

a

=2.4, c

v

=1.9

and c

d

=1.7.

Fajfar and Vidic [10] stated that Equation (1) could not be applied in the case of narrow-band

ground motions, such as the motions recorded at very soft soil sites.

The basic shape of Equation (1) is given by the pseudo-velocity spectrum (SV(T) =SA(T)/c)

normalized by the R

j

spectrum. Hence, the effect of ground motion duration comes indirectly

through SV(T) and the parameter z

g

. In addition, note that Equation (1) depends on response

Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:23652382

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

ESTIMATION OF HYSTERETIC ENERGY DEMANDS FOR SDOF SYSTEMS 2367

parameters (SV(T) and R

j

(T)) and explicitly (although weakly) depends on the period of the

system, through the parameter z

T

.

Manfredi

Manfredi [13] proposed the following equation to compute E

Hj

for elasticperfectly plastic SDOF

systems:

E

Hj

=(j

c

1) n

eq

_

SA(T)

c

_

2

_

1

R

j

(T)

_

2

(8)

where j

c

is the maximum cyclic ductility demand and n

eq

is the number of equivalent cycles,

given by

n

eq

=1 + 0.18(R

j

(T) 1)

3/5

I

D

o

1/6

t

1/2

(9)

I

D

=

_

t

E

0

a(t )

2

dt

PGAPGV

(10)

t =

_

T/T

1

if TT

1

1 if T>T

1

(11)

o =

_

/

0

if

0

1 if =

0

(12)

In Equations (10)(12), t

E

is the earthquake duration,

0

=0.05, and T

1

is the limit between the

short and medium period range of the NewmarkHall spectrum for each record, computed with

Equation (4), according to Fajfar and Vidic [10].

As in Fajfar and Vidics rule, the basic shape of Equation (8) is given by the SV(T) spectrum

normalized by the R

j

spectrum. The effect of ground motion duration comes indirectly through

SV(T) and the parameter I

D

. Note that Equation (8) also depends on response parameters (SV(T)

and R

j

(T)) and explicitly, but weakly, depends on the period of the system, through the parameter t.

Manfredi stated that since a large number of records were used, Equation (8) could be applied

to compute hysteretic energy demands for different types of ground motions. However, he acknow-

ledged that Equation (8) could overestimate hysteretic energy demands. In addition, he observed

that Equation (8) was not able to t the shift of the period of the peak value between the SV(T)

spectrum and the hysteretic energy spectrum, shown by some earthquakes.

Riddell and Garcia

Riddell and Garcia [14] proposed the following expression to construct tri-linear logarithmic

spectra of the square root of E

Hj

for elasticperfectly plastic, bilinear and stiffness degrading

SDOF systems:

v

j

=o

j

f

c

j

(13)

where v

j

is the square root of E

Hj

normalized by certain ground motion parameters depending

on the spectral region considered (i.e. acceleration, velocity or displacement region), f is the

Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:23652382

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

2368 D. ARROYO AND M. ORDAZ

frequency of the system and o

j

and c

j

are the coefcients that depend on the type of hysteretic

model, maximum ductility demand and on the spectral region considered.

Conversely to the rules listed before, the equations proposed by Riddell and Garcia do not

depend on response parameters. They depend on PGA, PGV, PGD, T and ground motion duration.

They used a set of 52 ground motions, most of them recorded at rm soil sites. They reported

coefcients of variation of the square root of E

Hj

in the range of 0.30.49.

Kunnath and Chai

Kunnath and Chai [15] proposed to compute hysteretic energy demands as a fraction of the elastic

input energy demand per unit of mass (E

I

), as follows:

E

Hj

=cE

I

(14)

with

c =1.13

(j 1)

0.82

j

(15)

E

I

=0.5v

2

e

=0.5(

v

PGV)

2

(16)

v

=

_

v

(2T/T

c

(T/T

c

)

2

) if T<T

c

v

(T/T

c

)

z

if T>T

c

(17)

v

=

0.25 PGA

PGV

_

t

d

T

c

_

z + 0.5

2z + 2

(18)

where T

c

is equal to T

1

in Fajfar and Vidics model (Equation (4)), t

d

is the ground motion duration

according to Trifunac and Brady [16] and z is a parameter that depends on the type of ground

motion. They used z =0.5 for the type of ground motions considered in their study (they mainly

used ground motions recorded at rm soil sites). They stated that Equation (15) was obtained from

stiffness degrading SDOF systems considering only four ground motions. As Riddell and Garcias

rule, this method does not depend on the response parameters, but explicitly depends on T.

As it can be observed, most of the methods available to compute E

Hj

were developed for rm

soil ground motions. Only the model proposed by Manfredi was developed to be applied on systems

located at different soil conditions. Nevertheless, this model is useful only for elasticperfectly

plastic systems, although it has been demonstrated [11] that the type of hysteretic behavior can

have an important effect on the hysteretic energy demands, especially for ground motions with

large duration, as those recorded at very soft soils.

In view of this situation, the objective of this study was to obtain empirical rules to compute

hysteretic energy demands for SDOF systems with different hysteretic behavior. The presented

model was developed to be applied to systems located at various soil conditions. In addition,

measures of the bias and variability of the model are presented.

HYSTERETIC MODELS CONSIDERED

Four hysteretic models were used: elasticperfectly plastic plus three strength- and stiffness-

degrading models. The degrading models were obtained from the model proposed by Kunnath

Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:23652382

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

ESTIMATION OF HYSTERETIC ENERGY DEMANDS FOR SDOF SYSTEMS 2369

Figure 1. Hysteretic models considered.

et al. [17], which requires the denition of three parameters that control the level of stiffness

degradation (:

k

), strength degradation ([

k

) and pinching (

k

). Although Kunnaths model can

consider a tri-linear envelope of the forcedisplacement relationship, in this paper we decided to

use a bi-linear envelope with zero strain hardening.

Figure 1 shows a sketch of the different models considered and in the following paragraphs, the

three degrading hysteretic models are described.

The rst degrading model utilized is the modied non-degrading Clough model. According

to Kunnath et al. [17] setting :

k

=

k

= and [

k

=0.0, their model reduces to a modi-

ed non-degrading Clough model. For the numerical analyses, the following values were

adopted: :

k

=20, [

k

=0.0 and

k

=2.0. As it can be observed in Figure 1(b), this model

resembles the behavior of well-detailed reinforced concrete structures, where the response

is primarily exural. Note that in this model, only the stiffness of reloading branches is

degraded.

The second degrading model used is Takedas model [18]. According to Kunnath et al. [17]

setting :

k

=2, [

k

=0.1 and

k

=2, their model reduces to Takedas. Note that in this model,

the stiffness of the unloading and reloading branches is degraded each time a maximum dis-

placement occurs. Also, the strength deteriorates depending on the hysteretic energy dissipated

for the system. As it can be observed in Figure 1(c), this model resembles the behavior of

reinforced concrete structures with strength and stiffness degradation, but without signicant

degradation of energy capacity dissipation.

The third degrading model used is the modied Takedas model. According to Kunnath

et al. [17] setting :

k

=2, [

k

=0.1 and

k

=0.5, their model reduces to modied Takedas

model. This model is similar to Takedas model, but the energy capacity dissipation is highly

deteriorated due to pinching of hysteretic loops. As it can be observed in Figure 1(d), this

Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:23652382

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

2370 D. ARROYO AND M. ORDAZ

model resembles the behavior of reinforced concrete structures with degradation caused by

high shear stresses and slippage of steel bars.

PROPOSED ESTIMATION RULE

The form of the proposed rule is dened in Equation (19). It depends on two response parameters

and on one duration parameter. In early studies it was considered that under certain hypothesis,

hysteretic energy demands could be estimated from elastic spectral velocity [1]; hence, the elastic

velocity spectrum normalized by PGV was adopted as the basic shape of Equation (19). For long

period systems the ratio between elastic spectral velocity and PGV tend to unity; however, for

this range of periods, E

Hj

must tend to zero. Then, the term SA/PGA was included in order to

attain the correct limit for long period systems. Finally, the effect of duration on E

Hj

was included

through the parameter t. Thus, the proposed rule is the following:

_

E

Hj

PGV

=

_

SA(:T)

PGA

_

a

0

_

V(:T)

PGV

_

a

1

t

a

2

s

f

(19)

where SA(:T) and V(:T) are the pseudo-acceleration spectrum and the elastic velocity spectrum

valued at a period equal to :T, respectively; t is the normalized duration of the ground motion

dened in Equation (20); s

f

is a scale factor and a

0

, a

1

and a

2

are the free parameters that account

for the effect of j on E

Hj

. In turn,

t =

t

d

V

max

2SD

max

(20)

where V

max

and SD

max

are the maxima of the elastic velocity and displacement spectra, respectively,

and t

d

is the ground motion duration dened according to Trifunac and Brady [16].

In Equation (20) the ground motion duration is normalized by a measure of its predominant

period; hence, t is a measure of the number of cycles of ground motion. Several ways to normalize

t

d

to obtain the number of cycles of ground motion were studied; the approach presented in

Equation (20) was selected because it yielded the best t in the regression analysis. However, it

must be acknowledged that for each spectral region, a different normalization of t

d

produces the

best correlation with E

Hj

, as Riddell and Garcia [14] have observed.

One special difference between Equation (19) and the available rules is the parameter :, which

takes into account the shift of the period of the peak value between the elastic spectra and the

hysteretic energy spectrum, shown by some earthquakes. In order to exemplify this observation,

V and constant ductility E

Hj

spectra for El Centro 1940 N-S record and SCT 1985 E-W record

are shown in Figure 2. The former accelerogram was recorded at a rm soil station in California,

while the latter was recorded at a soft soil station in Mexico City during the great 1985 Michoacan

earthquake. As it can be observed, especially for the recording at soft soil, the shapes of the E

Hj

spectra tend to depart from that of the velocity spectrum. For SCT record, the peak of V spectrum

is observed at a period of 2.4 s, while the peak of E

Hj

spectra is observed at periods ranging

between 2 s for elasticperfectly plastic systems and 1.6 s for the modied Takeda systems. For

El Centro record, the peak value of the V spectrum is observed at a period of 5 s, while the peak

of E

Hj

spectra is observed at periods ranging between 3.8 s for elasticperfectly plastic systems

and 3.2 s for the modied Takeda systems.

Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:23652382

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

ESTIMATION OF HYSTERETIC ENERGY DEMANDS FOR SDOF SYSTEMS 2371

Figure 2. V and E

Hj

spectra for El Centro 1940 N-S record and SCT 1985

E-W record, j =4 and =0.05.

Another difference between the rule proposed and the existing ones is that the formulation

presented does not depend explicitly on the value of T. As shown in Figure 2, the relationship

between E

Hj

and T depends on the soil type. For soft soil ground motions, which in general are

narrow banded, greater values of E

Hj

are observed for systems with values of T near to resonance.

On the other hand, for rm soil ground motions, which in general are wide-band signals, such

effect is not observed. Therefore, it was decided to select a model that does not depend explicitly

on T. Hence, it could be applied for systems located at different soil conditions.

Finally, note that Equation (19) has theoretically correct limits: as T approaches zero, Equation

(19) approaches zero, while as T approaches innity, Equation (19) approaches zero at a rate that

depends on SA(T). Finally, for j =1, Equation (19) yields zero.

REGRESSION ANALYSIS

A set of 47 strong ground motion records was used in the regression analysis. The records consid-

ered are listed in Table I. The set comprises accelerograms recorded at different soil conditions.

PGA is in the range of 2.61470 cm/s

2

, PGV is in the range of 0.1125 cm/s, t

d

is in the range

of 1.1192 s and t is in the range of 2.162.9. As it can be observed, the set is composed of 24

accelerograms recorded at rock and rm soil sites and 23 accelerograms recorded at very soft soil

sites, in order to attain the same level of accuracy at different soil conditions.

Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:23652382

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

2372 D. ARROYO AND M. ORDAZ

Table I. Strong ground motions records utilized in the regression analysis.

Station Date PGA (cm/s)

2

PGV (cm/s) t

d

(s) t Soil

Caleta 09/19/85 127.0 12.5 27.5 13.0 Rock

Caleta 02/08/99 3.5 0.1 7.0 24.2 Rock

SCT 09/19/85 160.0 58.0 36.8 15.0 Very soft soil

SCT 09/30/99 20.6 6.4 79.6 35.4 Very soft soil

Cerro de piedra 09/19/85 15.1 2.8 17.2 5.2 Rock

Cerro de piedra 01/13/90 138.0 3.4 1.1 3.4 Rock

Sector popular 09/14/95 40.4 13.8 92.5 46.0 Very soft soil

Villa del mar 09/30/99 38.3 12.5 101.0 38.5 Very soft soil

Aeropuerto 09/30/99 24.6 10.6 147.0 32.1 Very soft soil

CU 09/19/85 32.5 8.3 56.5 23.3 Firm soil

Caleta 12/29/99 4.9 0.5 22.0 16.3 Rock

Aeropuerto 09/14/95 30.9 13.8 192.0 39.7 Very soft soil

Tlahuac 09/19/85 117.0 34.2 57.7 23.5 Soft soil

Tacubaya 09/19/85 31.8 8.6 61.8 19.2 Firm soil

Filo de Caballo 09/19/85 64.0 8.3 26.6 11.2 Rock

Central del Abastos 09/19/85 76.5 38.5 128.0 32.3 Very soft soil

Central del Abastos 09/30/99 29.7 16.7 122.0 40.6 Very soft soil

Central del Abastos 09/14/95 32.2 12.8 111.0 36.2 Very soft soil

Aeropuerto 01/11/97 20.4 11.7 122.0 25.2 Very soft soil

Xochimilco 09/30/99 38.9 16.7 150.0 42.8 Very soft soil

Xochimilco 12/10/94 11.8 4.7 128.0 39.9 Very soft soil

Viveros 09/19/85 40.1 10.7 46.2 16.4 Firm soil

Roma A 12/10/94 19.4 6.3 80.2 36.1 Very soft soil

El Centro 05/18/40 350.0 67.6 14.2 3.1 Rock

Cordoba 09/30/99 30.5 9.7 116.0 52.7 Very soft soil

Ibero 09/30/99 30.4 7.7 76.6 49.1 Very soft soil

El Centro 12/16/55 11.6 1.8 22.9 4.6 Rock

Apeel2 Redwood City 17/10/89 268.8 53.7 9.3 8.4 Soft soil

Foster City 17/10/89 277.0 46.1 14.5 5.8 Soft soil

Treasure Island 17/10/89 155.0 34.0 4.5 2.1 Soft soil

San Francisco Airport 17/10/89 328.0 29.1 11.3 11.9 Soft soil

Northwestern Balkan/P 13/08/81 2.6 0.1 5.4 5.3 Soft soil

Cibeles 04/25/89 54.5 19.6 66.2 29.2 Very soft soil

Cenapred 01/11/97 5.6 1.8 66.6 14.4 Firm soil

Aeropuerto Zihuatanejo 09/19/85 155.0 17.7 19.1 10.9 Rock

Acapulco 10/24/93 58.3 2.1 9.5 12.6 Rock

Cayaco 09/30/99 4.8 0.5 55.3 12.4 Rock

Filo de Caballo 04/25/89 15.3 2.5 19.5 8.0 Rock

Autodromo 04/25/89 19.2 9.1 141.0 31.3 Very soft soil

TCU046 09/20/99 105.0 11.0 16.1 5.7 Rock

Cape Mendocino 04/25/92 1470.0 125.0 6.2 2.2 Rock

Llolleo 03/03/85 698.0 41.5 35.7 25.5 Firm soil

Tecamachalco 09/14/95 8.3 2.5 168.0 62.9 Firm soil

Campo Libre 09/14/95 13.8 4.5 63.8 21.0 Firm soil

Fremont mission 17/10/89 121.6 11.5 33.1 9.9 Firm soil

Parkeld, Stone corral 05/02/83 148.1 8.7 10.7 5.4 Rock

San Bernardino 06/28/92 90.4 13.7 26.2 14.9 Firm soil

Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:23652382

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

ESTIMATION OF HYSTERETIC ENERGY DEMANDS FOR SDOF SYSTEMS 2373

The size of the set used in the regression analysis is quite arbitrary. However, as it will be shown

later in the paper, when the proposed rule was applied to a second set of ground motions, the

measures of accuracy of the proposed rule were very similar than those observed in the rst set.

Hence, it was considered that the size of the set of ground motions used in the regression analysis

was acceptable.

In order to t Equation (19) to E

Hj

spectra obtained from SDOF systems subjected to the set

of accelerograms considered, the following modied version of Equation (19) was utilized:

y =a

0

x

1

+ a

1

x

2

+ a

2

x

3

+ b (21)

where y, x

1

, x

2

, x

3

and x

4

are the natural logarithms of

_

E

Hj

/PGV, SV(:T)/PGA, V(:T)/PGV,

t and s

f

, respectively.

Thus, for a given value of :, the coefcients a

0

, a

1

, a

2

and b can be obtained by multiple

linear regression analysis. The values of j =1.5, 2, 3, 4 and 6 were considered and the values of

T between 0.1 and 5 s were used, while a damping value of =0.05 was considered.

Then, for each ductility demand and each hysteretic model, the value of : that yielded the

minimum error was computed by an iterative procedure. The measure of error used is dened in

the following equation

o =

_

1

N

N

i =1

_

ln

_

E

Hji

E

Hji

__

2

(22)

where E

Hj

is the observed value of the hysteretic energy and

E

Hj

is the estimated value of E

Hj

,

while N is the number of data points considered in the analysis; for each value of j, N is equal

to the product between the number of periods and the number of records considered.

Since the values of a

0

, a

1

, a

2

and b are tted by multiple linear regression analysis, the esti-

mations obtained with the proposed model, on average, tend to be unbiased. However, in order

to show this feature, the bias of the estimation was also computed, according to the following

equation:

E =

1

N

N

i =1

ln

_

E

Hji

E

Hji

_

(23)

Note that the positive values of E imply that on average the model underestimates the observed

values, while the negative values of E mean that on average the observed values are overestimated.

The obtained results are summarized in Table II. As expected, : increases with ductility and

with the level of degradation of the hysteretic behavior. Also, for a given hysteretic model, a

0

tends to be fairly independent of j, while a

1

tends to decrease as j increases. The parameter a

2

has more inuence on elasticperfectly plastic and Clough systems than on Takedas and modied

Takedas models; for the former models, a

2

increases as ductility increases. Finally, s

f

= exp(b)

increases as ductility increases and is in the range of 0.6873 to nearly 1.

For given T and j, the proposed rule can be applied by the interpolation of values given in

Table II, which might be impractical. Therefore, it was decided to t some mathematical functions

to the coefcients of Table II. In all the cases, the simplest function was used. In addition, a

0

, a

1

and a

2

were constrained to positive values in order to avoid problems with the limit of the model

as T approaches to innity.

Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:23652382

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

2374 D. ARROYO AND M. ORDAZ

Table II. Coefcients obtained from regression analysis, =0.05.

j : a

0

a

1

a

2

exp(b) Hysteretic model

1.5 1.0200 0.3328 0.7450 0.0229 0.6873 EPP

2.0 1.0333 0.3413 0.7016 0.0700 0.7589 EPP

3.0 1.0733 0.3423 0.6462 0.1185 0.7788 EPP

4.0 1.0967 0.3463 0.6006 0.1427 0.7767 EPP

6.0 1.1400 0.3518 0.5378 0.1676 0.7591 EPP

1.5 1.0845 0.3693 0.6320 0.0895 0.8354 Clough

2.0 1.1575 0.3690 0.5773 0.1174 0.8822 Clough

3.0 1.3100 0.3640 0.5222 0.1416 0.8865 Clough

4.0 1.4333 0.3663 0.4833 0.1446 0.8994 Clough

6.0 1.7000 0.3593 0.4573 0.1594 0.8791 Clough

1.5 1.1125 0.3714 0.6370 0.0836 0.7919 Takeda

2.0 1.2000 0.3712 0.5811 0.0965 0.8628 Takeda

3.0 1.3900 0.3645 0.5367 0.1014 0.9056 Takeda

4.0 1.5500 0.3645 0.5112 0.0966 0.9331 Takeda

6.0 1.8500 0.3607 0.4903 0.0987 0.9356 Takeda

1.5 1.1426 0.3624 0.6375 0.0840 0.7872 mod-Takeda

3.0 1.4353 0.3612 0.5084 0.0901 0.9262 mod-Takeda

4.0 1.6348 0.3564 0.4888 0.0885 0.9411 mod-Takeda

6.0 1.9000 0.3645 0.4468 0.0779 0.9684 mod-Takeda

Based on these considerations, the following expressions to compute a

0

, a

1

, a

2

and s

f

= exp(b)

are proposed:

: =1 + (j 1)m (24)

a

0

=k

0

(25)

a

1

=

1

k

1

+ k

2

ln(j)

(26)

a

2

=k

3

k

4

/j (27)

s

f

= F

0

(1 e

z(j1)

) (28)

The values of parameters m, k

0

, k

1

, k

2

, k

3

, k

4

, F

0

and z are given in Table III. Although some dif-

ferences were observed, it was considered that Equations (24)(28) yielded acceptable estimations

of :, a

0

, a

1

, a

2

and s

f

.

The values of o obtained with Equation (21) and Equations (24)(28), for a given ductility

demand, are listed in Table IV. We observe a slight increment in o as j increases. The values in

the range between 0.526 and 0.627 were obtained.

The value of o is comparable to the coefcient of variation of E

Hj

; thus, the results presented in

Table IV can be compared with the coefcients of variation presented by Riddell and Garcia [14].

Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:23652382

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

ESTIMATION OF HYSTERETIC ENERGY DEMANDS FOR SDOF SYSTEMS 2375

Table III. Parameters of equations (24)(28).

Hysteretic model m k

0

k

1

k

2

k

3

k

4

F

0

z

EPP 0.03 0.3428 1.1716 0.3685 0.2152 0.2892 0.7708 4.4301

Clough 0.14 0.3655 1.4195 0.4441 0.1825 0.1356 0.8876 5.6537

Takeda 0.17 0.3664 1.4678 0.3368 0.1058 0.0273 0.9167 3.8306

mod-Takeda

Table IV. The values of o and E obtained with the proposed rule.

o E

Hysteretic model j=1.5 j=2 j=3 j=4 j=6 j=1.5 j=2 j=3 j=4 j=6

EPP 0.583 0.567 0.577 0.593 0.627 0.004 0.010 0.020 0.011 0.035

Clough 0.525 0.543 0.569 0.580 0.590 0.021 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.007

Takeda 0.534 0.554 0.569 0.571 0.582 0.007 0.078 0.027 0.008 0.070

mod-Takeda

0.526 0.555 0.574 0.576 0.583 0.004 0.093 0.045 0.009 0.056

They obtained values of the coefcient of variation of the square root of E

Hj

in the range between

0.31 and 0.6, that is, between 0.62 and 1.2 for the coefcient of variation of E

Hj

. Note that the peak

coefcient of variation obtained with the proposed method is almost half of the peak coefcient

of variation reported by Riddell and Garcia [13]. In addition, Fajfar and Vidic [10] identied that

coefcients of variation of energy are larger than the coefcients of variation of displacement

parameters. Therefore, the accuracy of the proposed method can be considered acceptable.

The values of E obtained with the proposed model are also given in Table IV. As expected, the

estimations are almost unbiased. The maximum and minimum values of 0.07 and 0.093 were

obtained, respectively. This means that, on average, the largest bias of the models is about 9%.

It is important to recall that none of the rules previously derived to compute E

Hj

demands have

discussed the size of their corresponding biases.

The information presented in Table IV can be considered as a global measure of the accuracy of

the proposed model. However, it is also important to study the accuracy of the model for given Tj

combinations. Figures 3 and 4 show o and E spectra for estimations obtained with the proposed

model.

In general, all hysteretic models have very similar values of o. The largest values of o are

observed for systems with T<0.4 s. Although large values of o are observed at this region, it must

be acknowledged that as T approaches zero E

Hj

also tends to zero; hence, the larger errors of the

model are expected at systems with small energy demands. For systems with T>0.4 s, o tends to

be fairly independent of T.

As in the case of the o spectra, the largest values of bias E are observed at the short period region.

Here, the negative values of E are observed, except for the case of elasticperfectly plastic systems

with j =1.5 and 2. Thus, at this period range, the proposed model systematically overestimates

the observed values of E

Hj

, except for elasticperfectly plastic systems undergoing small ductility

Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:23652382

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

2376 D. ARROYO AND M. ORDAZ

Figure 3. o spectra for the proposed rule.

demands, where underestimations were systematically observed. For systems with T>1 s, the E

spectra uctuate around zero. That is, the estimations tend to be unbiased. At this period range,

E spectra are fairly independent from T.

From the results presented in this section it can be concluded that the accuracy of the proposed

models is satisfactory.

In order to qualitatively illustrate the ability of the proposed rule to estimate E

Hj

demands for

ground motions recorded at different soil conditions, Figure 5 compares the estimated values of

_

E

Hj

/PGV obtained with the proposed rule for the Cape Mendocino and C ordoba records. The

Cape Mendocino record is a very impulsive ground motion recorded at a rock soil site; on the

other hand, the C ordoba record is a very long, nearly harmonic ground motion recorded at

the lake bed zone of Mexico City. As it can be observed, the proposed rule is able to capture

the differences between spectral shapes of

_

E

Hj

/PGV spectra observed in ground motions

recorded at rm and very soft soil sites.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER FORMULATIONS

In this section, the accuracy of the proposed method is compared with the accuracy of the one

proposed by Manfredi. Only this rule was considered because it was the only method that can be

applied at various soil conditions [13].

Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:23652382

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

ESTIMATION OF HYSTERETIC ENERGY DEMANDS FOR SDOF SYSTEMS 2377

Figure 4. E spectra for the proposed rule.

Figure 5. Estimations of

_

E

Hj

/PGV obtained with the proposed rule for ground motions recorded at

rock sites and very soft soil sites, =0.05.

The comparisons shown in this section were obtained from elasticperfectly plastic SDOF

systems subjected to a second set of ground motions, comprising 46 accelerograms recorded at

different soil conditions during several seismic events, which were not used in the regression

analysis of this paper, nor in Manfredis study. These ground motions are listed in Table V;

as shown, there are accelerograms recorded at four different soil conditions. According to the

USGS site classication, Type A ground motions were recorded at sites with shear wave velocities

Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:23652382

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

2378 D. ARROYO AND M. ORDAZ

Table V. Second set of ground motions utilized.

Station Date Comp PGA (cm/s

2

) PGV (cm/s) t

d

(s) t Soil

Lamont 11/12/99 N-S 27.8 11.0 19.1 4.0 A

Lamont 11/12/99 E-W 52.2 5.3 18.5 3.8 A

Gilroy array no. 1 10/18/89 0 403.0 31.6 6.5 4.7 A

Gilroy array no. 1 10/18/89 90 464.0 33.9 3.7 5.8 A

Lucerne 6/28/92 275 707.0 97.7 13.1 2.9 A

Lucerne 6/28/92 0 770.0 31.9 13.8 4.8 A

MT Wilson-CIT 1/17/94 0 229.0 7.3 9.9 19.7 A

MT Wilson-CIT 1/17/94 90 132.0 5.7 13.8 17.6 A

Lake Hughes no. 9 02/09/71 21 154.0 4.5 9.4 10.5 A

Lake Hughes no. 9 02/09/71 291 131.0 3.9 11.8 7.3 A

LA-Wonderland Ave 10/01/87 75 38.4 1.7 6.7 8.6 A

LA-Wonderland Ave 10/01/87 165 46.5 1.5 7.1 14.0 A

Duzce 11/12/99 180 341.0 60.0 10.9 2.3 C

Duzce 11/12/99 270 525.0 83.5 10.8 2.2 C

Erzikan 03/13/92 N-S 505.0 84.0 7.5 3.3 C

Erzikan 03/13/92 E-W 486.0 64.3 7.4 2.6 C

Hollywood Storage 10/01/87 0 217.0 9.0 11.5 12.3 C

Hollywood Storage 10/01/87 90 122.0 6.9 13.8 12.8 C

Petrolia 04/25/92 0 578.0 48.1 17.7 14.2 C

Petrolia 04/25/92 90 650.0 89.7 16.1 9.9 C

San Bernardino 06/28/92 90 90.4 13.8 23.2 13.1 C

San Bernardino 06/28/92 180 98.8 11.8 23.6 14.1 C

Takatori 01/16/95 0 600.0 127.0 11.4 6.1 E

Takatori 01/16/95 90 604.0 121.0 9.9 6.2 E

Takarazu 01/16/95 0 680.0 68.3 4.6 2.7 E

Takarazu 01/16/95 90 680.0 85.3 3.7 2.7 E

Salton Sea 04/26/81 225 195.0 16.3 8.4 5.3 E

Salton Sea 04/26/81 315 173.0 12.3 9.2 6.2 E

Apeel 1 Redwood City 04/24/84 40 44.9 3.4 21.3 18.5 E

Apeel 1 Redwood City 04/24/84 310 66.6 4.0 19.0 21.8 E

Montebello, Bluff 01/17/94 206 176.0 9.4 10.6 13.9 E

Montebello, Bluff 01/17/94 296 126.0 5.9 13.8 7.7 E

Ambarli 08/17/99 N-S 244.0 40.0 36.6 8.8 E

Ambarli 08/17/99 E-W 181.0 33.2 37.2 13.7 E

Alameda 09/30/99 N-S 26.8 8.0 99.6 46.3 Very soft soil

Alameda 09/30/99 E-W 22.6 4.8 91.9 49.8 Very soft soil

Buenos Aires 04/25/89 N-S 54.4 23.5 107.0 36.0 Very soft soil

Buenos Aires 04/25/89 E-W 58.9 22.5 87.7 28.7 Very soft soil

Garibaldi 09/30/99 N-S 27.2 8.3 92.5 43.5 Very soft soil

Garibaldi 09/30/99 E-W 18.3 5.9 108.0 54.4 Very soft soil

Hospital Juarez 12/29/99 N-S 4.9 1.5 72.5 34.1 Very soft soil

Hospital Juarez 12/29/99 E-W 6.1 1.4 58.9 26.6 Very soft soil

Liverpool 09/30/99 N-S 31.1 11.1 109.0 50.1 Very soft soil

Liverpool 09/30/99 E-W 26.1 7.7 99.6 46.1 Very soft soil

Tlatelolco 04/25/89 N-S 44.8 12.0 49.7 24.7 Very soft soil

Tlatelolco 04/25/89 E-W 30.7 9.6 64.2 30.4 Very soft soil

Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:23652382

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

ESTIMATION OF HYSTERETIC ENERGY DEMANDS FOR SDOF SYSTEMS 2379

Table VI. The values of o and E for the second set of ground motions.

o E

j=1.5 j=2 j=3 j=4 j=6 j=1.5 j=2 j=3 j=4 j=6

This study 0.561 0.521 0.514 0.515 0.530 0.008 0.012 0.042 0.045 0.029

Manfredi 1.335 0.942 0.694 0.611 0.557 1.222 0.757 0.415 0.292 0.196

greater than 750 m/s, Type C ground motions were recorded at sites with shear wave velocities

between 180 and 360 m/s and Type D ground motions were recorded at sites with shear wave

velocities lower than 180 m/s. The very soft soil ground motions were recorded at sites with

shear wave velocities lower than 100 m/s. PGA is in the range of 4.9770 cm/s

2

, PGV is in

the range of 1.489.7 cm/s, t

d

is in the range of 3.7108 s and t is in the range of 2.254.4.

As it can be observed, almost the same number of accelerograms for each type of ground mo-

tion was included in order to assess the accuracy of the rules considered under different soil

conditions.

The values of o and E obtained with the proposed model and Manfredis rule are given in

Table VI. Although the set ground motions listed in Table V were not used in the regression

analysis, the values of o given in Table VI related to the proposed rule are very similar to

the values presented in Table IV. Hence, it can be considered that the regression analysis was

satisfactory.

As it can be observed, the proposed method yields smaller values of o than Manfredis rule,

especially for j<4. The greatest differences are observed for systems undergoing small ductility

demands, where the values of o obtained with Manfredis model are nearly double than those

obtained with the proposed rule. On the other hand, for systems with j =6, the accuracy of the

two methods becomes similar.

As expected, according to the results given in Table VI, the estimations obtained with the

proposed rule tend to be unbiased, although slight underestimations are observed for all ductility

demands, especially for j =3 and 4. Conversely, the expression proposed by Manfredi yields

biased estimations. On average, as he stated [13], Manfredis rule overestimates hysteretic energy

demands. The greater overestimations are observed at systems undergoing small ductility demands.

Figure 6 compares o and E spectra obtained with the proposed rule and Manfredis method for

some values of j. With the proposed rule, for systems with T<4 s the value of o tends to increase

as T approaches zero, while for systems with T>4 s the value of o tends to be independent of T.

In Figure 6 it can be observed that Manfredis rule yields biased estimations of hysteretic energy

demands, that is, it systematically overestimates E

Hj

, except for systems in the short period range

with j =6. Conversely, the estimations obtained with the expression proposed in this study tend

to be unbiased. In the short period range, the method proposed systematically overestimates E

Hj

,

while in the medium and large period range, the proposed method slightly underestimates E

Hj

demands.

Finally, Figure 7 compares o values as a function of j for different soil types. Also, a comparison

between values of o associated to peak hysteretic energy demand is included. As it can be observed,

on average, the level of accuracy of the proposed model is similar for all soil types considered,

the greater differences being about 20% for j =2. Slightly smaller values of o are observed for

Type C ground motions and larger values are observed for Type A ground motions. In the case of

Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:23652382

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

2380 D. ARROYO AND M. ORDAZ

Figure 6. Comparison between and o and E spectra for different estimations of E

Hj

.

the Manfredis rule, the greater differences between o are about 25% for j =3, with the smallest

values observed also for Type C ground motions; larger errors are observed for very soft soil

ground motions.

For the proposed model, the values of o related to peak energy demand are similar to the values

of o considering all period range, except for very soft ground motions where larger errors are

observed in peak energy demand for values j =4 and 6. For the values of j =1.5, 2, the smallest

values of o are observed for very soft soil ground motions, while the largest values are observed for

the Type A ground motions. On the other hand, for j =36 the smallest values of o are observed

for Type E ground motions, while the largest values are observed for very soft soil ground motions.

For a given j, the largest difference between o values related to peak energy demand is about 40%

for j =1.5. In the case of Manfredis rule, it can be observed that the values of o related to peak

energy demand are smaller than those observed considering the whole period range. The smallest

values of o are observed for very soft soil ground motions, while the largest values are observed

for the Type A ground motions. For a given j, the largest difference between o values related to

peak energy demand is about 45% for j =2.

In this section it has been shown that, in general, the estimations obtained with the proposed

rule are more accurate than the estimations obtained with the other rule available to compute E

Hj

demands for systems located at various soil conditions. The proposed model has the advantage

that it can be applied for SDOF systems with different hysteretic models. One special feature of

the proposed model is that it tends to yield unbiased estimations of E

Hj

, a feature that can be

important particularly in the context of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, where estimations of

median values of response parameters are often needed.

Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:23652382

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

ESTIMATION OF HYSTERETIC ENERGY DEMANDS FOR SDOF SYSTEMS 2381

Figure 7. Comparison between o values for different soil types.

CONCLUSIONS

Expressions to compute hysteretic energy demands for SDOF systems have been presented. The

proposed equations were developed for four types of hysteretic behavior: elasticperfectly plastic,

Clough, Takedas and modied Takedas models. The proposed method depends on elastic pseudo-

acceleration and velocity spectra and on a measure of the number of cycles of ground motion. It

accounts for the shift of the period of the peak value between elastic spectra and the hysteretic

energy spectrum.

It has been shown that the proposed rules can be applied to compute hysteretic energy demands

for systems located at different soil conditions and that the accuracy of the proposed model is

better than that of the other comparable available rule. In addition, it is shown that the proposed

method tends to yield unbiased estimations of hysteretic energy demands.

REFERENCES

1. Housner GW. Limit design of structures to resist earthquakes. Proceedings of the 1st World Conference on

Earthquake Engineering. EERI: Berkeley, CA, 1956.

2. Iemura H. Earthquake failure criteria of deteriorating hysteretic structures. Seventh World Conference on

Earthquake Engineering, vol. 5, Istanbul, Turkey, 1980; 8188.

3. Zarah T, Hall W. Earthquake energy absorption in SDOF systems. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 1984;

110(8):17571772.

4. Park YJ, Ang AH, Wen YK. Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. ASCE Journal of

Structural Engineering 1985; 111(4):722739.

Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:23652382

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

2382 D. ARROYO AND M. ORDAZ

5. Park YJ, Ang AH. Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. ASCE Journal of Structural

Engineering 1985; 111(4):740757.

6. Uang CM, Bertero VV. Evaluation of seismic energy in structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural

Dynamics 1990; 19:7790.

7. Fajfar P. Equivalent ductility factors taking into account low-cycle fatigue. Earthquake Engineering and Structural

Dynamics 1992; 21:837848.

8. Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Ramasco R. The use of damage functionals in earthquake engineering: a comparison

between different methods. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1993; 22:868885.

9. Rodriguez M. A measure of the capacity of earthquake ground motions to damage structures. Earthquake

Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1994; 23:627643.

10. Fajfar P, Vidic T. Consistent inelastic design spectra: hysteretic and input energy. Earthquake Engineering and

Structural Dynamics 1994; 23:523537.

11. Teran A. Performance-based earthquake-resistant design of framed buildings using energy concepts. Ph.D.

Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1996.

12. Akiyama H. Earthquake-resistant Design Method for Buildings Based on Energy Balance. Gihodo Shuppan Co.:

Japan, 1999.

13. Manfredi G. Evaluation of seismic energy demand. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2001;

30:485499.

14. Riddell R, Garcia JE. Hysteretic energy spectrum and damage control. Earthquake Engineering and Structural

Dynamics 2001; 30:17911816.

15. Kunnath SK, Chai YH. Cumulative damage-based inelastic cyclic demand spectrum. Earthquake Engineering

and Structural Dynamics 2004; 33:499520. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.363

16. Trifunac MD, Brady AG. A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological

Society of America 1975; 65(3):581626.

17. Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM, Park YJ. Analytical modeling of inelastic seismic response of R/C structures. ASCE

Journal of Structural Engineering 1990; 116(4):9961017.

18. Takeda T, Sozen MA. Reinforced concrete response to simulated earthquakes. ASCE Journal of Structural

Engineering 1970; 96:25572573.

Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:23652382

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

- How Buildings Twist During EarthquakeEnviado porThishani De Silva
- Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis Selection Method ApproachesEnviado pormphil.ramesh
- Timber Design to SeismicEnviado porKristjan Igasta
- hw3Enviado pormodparadigm
- BAL-003-0_1bEnviado porjorjijon
- Ada 473252Enviado porAnonymous i8jqGxiN9
- Exam FinalEnviado porkhaledd192
- Problem a 16Enviado porWalter Darwin Sacaca
- Astm d7682Enviado porVicki Williford
- A Better Measure of Relative Prediction Accuracy for Model Selection and Fitting Preprint JORSEnviado porJuan Ignacio González Espinosa
- Earthquake Risk Assessment of Building StructuresEnviado pormirza
- Hoskingetal_1985.pdfEnviado porAnonymous lDJKyI3ez
- 037 software.pdfEnviado porKobalt von Kriegerischberg
- Jensen 1990Enviado porpelusa60
- Estimation1ans.pdfEnviado pord
- Exam C SyllabusEnviado porchew_jacky
- Sea Oc Comp 082009Enviado por...?
- Pacific EQ EngineeringEnviado porJose 'Chino' Martinez Rivera
- Exam C FormulasEnviado porTrever Grah
- Weighted DistributionsEnviado poronwunalu
- 2011_HongYue_pt3Enviado porMarcelo Silva
- Box Girder BajaEnviado porEdward van Martino
- 1 hystersis phyEnviado porraj007nish
- Seismic Code Requirements for NonStructural Components Part AEnviado porw_barnett
- On the Problem of Calibration G.K. Shukla TechnometricsEnviado pormilos
- Kinematic Bending Moments in Pile FoundationsEnviado porMarco Della Pelle
- On the Eigenvalue Control of Electromechanical Oscilations by Adaptative Power System StabilizerEnviado porJavier Ruiz Thorrens
- FourierEnviado porsmouhab
- ECO240_HW2Enviado porMichelleLee
- Maths P2Enviado porcollege2job

- ManderEnviado porhal9000_mark1
- Master Puentes Mexico.pdfEnviado porhal9000_mark1
- Master Puentes Mexico.pdfEnviado porhal9000_mark1
- [PHILLIPI] Use of Mechanical Couplers in Concrete ColumnsEnviado porhal9000_mark1
- AddingYourCode.pdfEnviado porhal9000_mark1
- 01Transflex TR270TR380ING 2016Enviado porhal9000_mark1
- 3. Ovaling deformations of circular tunnels under seismic loading, an update on seismic design and analysis of underground structures.pdfEnviado pornaim
- bdp_1.pdfEnviado porAnonymous nbqjncpIM
- [CZOP] Fluid-Structure Simulation of a Valve System Used in Hydraulic DampersEnviado porhal9000_mark1
- SAUNIER DUVAL 2018.pdfEnviado porhal9000_mark1
- [PECKER] Standardisation Needs for the Design of Underground StructuresEnviado porhal9000_mark1
- transflexEnviado porganmoses
- [MARTINEZ-SOLARES] El Terremoto de Lisboa de 1755Enviado porhal9000_mark1
- Hall 1999Enviado porJavier Bencor
- [COUSINS] Recent Developments in Devices for Seismic IsolationEnviado porhal9000_mark1
- [BURTSCHER] Mechanical Aspects of High-damping RubberEnviado porhal9000_mark1
- [CALTRANS] Guidelines for Generation of Response-spectrum-compatible Rock Motion Time Histories for Application to CALTRANS Toll Bridge Seismic Retrofit ProjectsEnviado porhal9000_mark1
- Tuberia de AceroEnviado porhal9000_mark1
- 21944Enviado porhal9000_mark1
- 21944Enviado porhal9000_mark1
- Diseño de Aislantes Sísmicos en PuentesEnviado porKemmer Sanchez Zarate
- Diseño de Aislantes Sísmicos en PuentesEnviado porKemmer Sanchez Zarate
- Beams on Elastic Foundation by HetenyiEnviado porm5416
- PS design.pdfEnviado porsuranga
- Seismic Design of Steel Special Concentrically Braced Frame SystemsEnviado porPanagiotis Xanthos
- Feb7_2011_GREnviado porhal9000_mark1
- 1Enviado porMauricio Bustamante Huaquipa
- [JACOBSEN] Impulsive Hydrodynamics of Fluid Inside a Cylindrical Tank and of Fluid Surrounding a Cylindrical PierEnviado porhal9000_mark1
- Guia Usuario UpmdriveEnviado porJoe Suastegui Bibiano
- Proteccion Sismica de Estructuras CdtEnviado porkaiserasrael

- 03-Vibration Control of Piping SystemsEnviado porDiana Budi Prasetya
- HS2 Orcs of Stonefang PassEnviado porcaughenbaugh7888
- Seismic WaveEnviado poraset999
- Seismic Design of Steel BuildingsEnviado porHerrMeier4221
- iso.14963.2003Enviado pordarwin
- 2stress-Hydraulic Fracturing MethodEnviado porBhaskar Reddy
- plate tectonics web quest studentEnviado porapi-330300646
- About CrisisEnviado porkeloo12345
- Ocean Chap 1Enviado poralimahroug
- Dynamic EarthEnviado porDenis Elena
- 2%50yrs 0.5secEnviado porHosein Kerdar
- honorslithosphereprojectEnviado porapi-341593544
- StructuralEnviado porAshlin Aarthi
- Emergency Procedures Worksheet (1)Enviado porCorwin Davis
- GeoEnviado porxbabax
- Disaster ManagementEnviado porViswa Nathan
- From PhivolcsEnviado porRyanYu
- A Volcanoes Voice in ShelleyEnviado porwaynedeakin5304
- 2911_3.pdfEnviado porNaga Manikanta Tatikonda
- Civil Sem-7Enviado porFullMoon N R
- SoilEnviado porsuhashg1
- 3-structuralEnviado porKalish kumar
- (2013) Seismic Performance Assessment of Steel Corrugated Shear Wall System Using Non-linear AnalysisEnviado porraghu_thinks
- Mechanical Characterization of the Structural CompEnviado porJhamill Linares Tejeda
- Aag Mxroad Ltr en LrEnviado porAndenet Ashagrie
- Juan Napkil vs. CAEnviado porJosine Protasio
- GeoSS-BCA EC7 Briefing (19Nov2014).pdfEnviado porjohnkoh99
- PNP Disaster Response HandbookEnviado porbatman143
- Landslides Falling Into Water ReservoirsEnviado porselvam311
- TermProject-ReportofDynamicStructuralAnalysisEnviado porRaja Shekar