Jalayer Et Al-2009-Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics-2

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:951972

Published online 2 December 2008 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.876
Alternative non-linear demand estimation methods for

probability-based seismic assessments
F. Jalayer, and C. A. Cornell
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, U.S.A.
SUMMARY
Alternative non-linear dynamic analysis procedures, using real ground motion records, can be used to make
probability-based seismic assessments. These procedures can be used both to obtain parameter estimates
for specific probabilistic assessment criteria such as demand and capacity factored design and also to
make direct probabilistic performance assessments using numerical methods. Multiple-stripe analysis is
a non-linear dynamic analysis method that can be used for performance-based assessments for a wide
range of ground motion intensities and multiple performance objectives from onset of damage through
global collapse. Alternatively, the amount of analysis effort needed in the performance assessments can be
reduced by performing the structural analyses and estimating the main parameters in the region of ground
motion intensity levels of interest. In particular, single-stripe and double-stripe analysis can provide local
probabilistic demand assessments using minimal number of structural analyses (around 20 to 40). As a
case study, the displacement-based seismic performance of an older reinforced concrete frame structure,
which is known to have suffered shear failure in its columns during the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, is
evaluated. Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 3 June 2008; Revised 6 October 2008; Accepted 6 October 2008
KEY WORDS:
probabilistic seismic assessments; non-linear dynamic analysis; demand and capacity

factored design; global instability; multiple-stripe analysis; performance-based design;
earthquake engineering
1. INTRODUCTION
One of the main attributes distinguishing performance-based earthquake engineering from traditional earthquake engineering is the definition of quantifiable performance objectives that balance
desirable structural performance and life cycle costs [1]. A performance objective can be expressed
by the probability of exceeding a specified limit state or performance level defined in terms of
Correspondence
to: F. Jalayer, Department of Structural Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, Via Claudio
21, Naples, Italy.
E-mail: fati@stanfordalumni.org
Contract/grant sponsor: U.S. National Science Foundation; contract/grant number: EEC-9701568
Copyright q
2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
952
F. JALAYER AND C. A. CORNELL
life cycle cost and/or some other structural performance parameter. Probabilistic performance
objectives need to take into consideration the uncertainty in the ground motion and structural
modeling parameters.
Demand and capacity factor design (DCFD), named because of its similarity to the LRFD
procedures, is a probability-based format for performance-based seismic design and assessment
of structures [2]. The DCFD probabilistic performance objective is represented by an analytic
closed-form expression after making certain simplifying assumptions about the main components
of the DCFD format [3]. Implementation of DCFD formats closed-form representation for seismic
design or assessment involves obtaining parameter estimates. In addition to relevant seismic hazard
information, a suite of non-linear dynamic analyses can be organized to obtain such parameter
estimates. Alternatively, the integral expression for the probability of exceeding a specified performance level can be calculated directly using numerical methods. The results can be used as a
basis for evaluating the DCFD estimations when the assumptions underlying the derivation of its
closed-form are not satisfied.
This paper discusses how to implement non-linear dynamic analyses in probabilistic
performance-based assessment of structures. The probabilistic performance objective for the
assessments is defined by taking into account the uncertainty in the ground motion. The non-linear
dynamic procedures introduced in this paper can be carried out both for the full range of ground
motion intensities of interest and also for a limited range of ground motion intensities (or hazard)
levels. In particular, multiple-stripe analysis (MSA) is a non-linear dynamic analysis procedure
suitable for probability-based assessments for multiple performance levels. Alternatively, for the
purpose of minimizing the analysis effort, non-linear dynamic methods such as single-stripe
analysis or double-stripe analysis can be used in order to make seismic assessments concentrating
on a single limit state. These methods have already been implemented by researchers in seismic
assessment of structures (e.g. [49]). The seismic probabilistic assessments discussed in this paper
are performed for both the collapse limit state and intermediate damage levels such as the onset
of damage limit state in the structure.
In some cases, the displacement response is either too large to be meaningful or it is simply
unavailable owing to numerical non-convergence in the structural analysis software. Both situations,
which may signal an over-all lack of stability in the structure, may be treated in a similar manner by
assuming that the displacement response in the structure is arbitrarily large. This paper addresses
such cases by presenting a methodology for structural performance assessment in cases where
some of the records displacement responses are too large to be included among the body of the
displacements computed.
The maximum inter-story drift ratio response in the structure and over the entire ground motion
time-history has been chosen as the the engineering demand parameter in the design/assessment
process. This is a particularly suitable choice for moment-resisting frame structures, since it relates
the global response of the structure to joint rotations where most of the inelastic behavior in
the moment-resisting frames is concentrated. The spectral acceleration at the first-mode period
and denoted by Sa (T1 ) or simply Sa has been adopted as the intensity measure variable. This
choice is supported by studies by Shome and Cornell [10]. They demonstrate that for first-mode
dominated moment-resisting frame structures with first-mode periods lying within the moderate
range (e.g. around T = 1.0 s), the spectral acceleration of the first mode is sufficient for relaying
the primary ground motion characteristics to the structural response. Recent studies have found
that vector-valued intensity measures prove to be more effective [11, 12]. Nevertheless, the focus
of this work is on how to organize a series of non-linear dynamic analyses once a suitable choice
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
ALTERNATIVE NON-LINEAR DEMAND ESTIMATION METHODS
953
for an intensity measure is being made. In what follows, we shall simply refer to the case specific
measures: spectral acceleration and maximum inter-story drift.
2. A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT EXAMPLE: AN OLDER REINFORCED

CONCRETE FRAME
An older reinforced concrete frame structure in Los Angeles is selected as a comprehensive
case study in probabilistic assessment of an earthquake-damaged existing structure. This structure
has served as a test-bed for the activities of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering (PEER) Center
(http://www.peertestbeds.net). For demonstrating the probabilistic assessment procedure, the accuracy of the mathematical modeling of this particular building was not imperative. Nevertheless, an
analysis software is chosen that is capable of modeling cyclic stiffness and strength degradation
behavior in reinforced concrete. To this effect, DRAIN2D-UW, a modified version of DRAIN2D,
which was produced by Professor Jose Pincheiras research team in the University of Wisconsin
(see [13, 14]), is chosen as the analysis software. One of the transverse frames in the case-study
structure is modeled using DRAIN2D-UW. Figure 1(a) illustrates the schematic model of the
frame and centerline dimensions. The members are modeled using a beamcolumn element. The
degrading behavior is concentrated in two rotational springs at the two ends (flexure) and a translation spring in the middle of the element (shear). The hysteresis behavior of a typical beamcolumn
element is also shown in the figure (Figure 1(b)). The figure also illustrates the static pushover
curve for the structure (Figure 1(c)). Note that it is plotted with respect not to the roof drift, as it
is customary, but to the response measure used here, maximum (over all stories) of the inter-story
drift ratio. The onset of significant structural damage (defined here as an inter-story drift of 0.007)
in the frame is marked on the curve. The small-amplitude natural frequencies of the first two
modes are computed to be 1.25 and 3.66 Hz, respectively.
3. RECORD SELECTION
For this exercise, a set of 30 ground motion records was selected from the PEER-NGA Database
[15] for California sites. These records were all California events recorded on stiff soil (Geomatrix
soil types C and D : deep soil [15]) and were selected from a moment magnitude and (closest)
source-to-site distance range of:
6.5 M7
15 R32
(1)
Addressing the current issues in ground motion selection is not the focus of this study. It is
generally presumed that one should select records representative of the events that dominate the
probabilistic hazard for the ground motion levels of interest, as determined informally or formally,
e.g. by de-aggregation [16, 17]. The magnitude range, 6.5M7, is presumed to be representative
of the events likely to cause severe ground motions at this site. With the exception of potential nearsource and directivity-influenced records, the most important record characteristics (e.g. spectral
shape), other than general amplitude level, are comparatively insensitive to distance. In most cases
in this study, the records will be scaled relative to their recorded values; therefore, the recorded
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
954
2.7 m
2.7 m
Shear Force, kips
2.7 m
2.7 m
2.7 m
2.7 m
4m
Chord Rotation
6.12 m
(a)
6.12 m
6.12 m
(b)
x 104
Base shear [kg]'s
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
(c)
0.005
0.01
0.015
Maximum inter-story drift ratio max
0.02
Figure 1. (a) Transverse frame of an existing RC frame structure (dimensions are in meters); (b) example
of degrading hysteretic behavior; and (c) the static pushover curve.
amplitude is not directly relevant. Directivity issues (e.g. pulse-like records) are beyond the scope
of this particular study (see, e.g. [11, 18]). Issues of nonlinear response sensitivity to magnitude
and distance and record scaling are discussed by Shome et al. [10]. Nonetheless, the subject of
site-specific record selection and modification for non-linear demand estimation deserves, and is
the subject of, further research (e.g. [12, 19, 20]).
4. PROBABILISTIC FRAMEWORK FOR DESIGN AND ASSESSMENT OF STRUCTURES

A probability-based statement for a particular performance objective can be expressed in terms of
the mean annual frequency of exceeding a limit state LS . The mean annual frequency of structural
demand variable max exceeding the limit state threshold variable (capacity) CLS can be calculated
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
by expanding it with respect to all the possible values y of the demand variable:

LS = (max >CLS ) = FCLS (y)|dmax (y)|
955
(2)
FCLS also known as the fragility functionis the cumulative probability distribution function
(CDF) for capacity variable, CLS , and max (y)also known as the drift hazardis the (mean)
annual frequency of exceeding the demand variable, max . In the procedures described herein, the
limit states are assumed to be predicted by a critical maximum inter-story displacement and to
have a capacity represented by a probability distribution in such displacement terms.
In a similar manner, the expression for mean annual frequency of exceeding the demand variable
max (y) (also known as the drift hazard [2]) can be expanded with respect to all the possible
values x of the intensity measure, here spectral acceleration Sa :

max (y) = (max >y) = G max |Sa (y|x)|d Sa (x)|
(3)
x
where G max |Sa (y|x) is the conditional probability of exceeding a specified level max = y of the
maximum inter-story drift ratio for a given intensity measure level, Sa = x, which is also referred
to as the conditional complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) of demand, max ,
for a given Sa value. Sa (x) is the mean annual frequency of exceeding spectral acceleration, also
known as the spectral acceleration hazard function. Detailed discussion of Equations (2) and (3)
can be found in a report by the authors [3].
4.1. Probabilistic demand assessments in the range of large displacements
There are situations in which the calculated displacement response of the structure is not credible
or, in effect, not finite; these cases may demonstrate themselves as numerical non-convergence
in the structural analysis software or excessively large displacements (e.g. drift ratios more than
10%) beyond the validity of the mechanical model. In still other cases to be discussed below,
we shall define collapse to have occurred based on the excessive rate of displacement growth per
unit increase in ground motion intensity. This section discusses probabilistic demand assessments
when a subset of the (dynamic) displacement-based responses of the structure is of these types. For
simplicity, we refer to these cases of extreme dynamic displacement response in the structure as
collapse cases; with the awareness that these global collapse cases constitute only one potential
type of structural collapse. The expression for conditional CCDF of demand max = y for a given
spectral acceleration, Sa = x can be expanded as (see [21]):
G max |Sa (y|x) = G max |N C,Sa (y|x)PN C|Sa (x)+ G max |C,Sa (y|x)(1 PN C|Sa (x))
(4)
where PN C|Sa (x) = 1 PC|Sa (x) is the probability that there are no cases of collapse observed under
a ground motion with a given spectral acceleration, x, or more briefly, the conditional probability of
non-collapse given spectral acceleration. Given collapse, the conditional probability of exceeding
any finite drift demand, G max |C,Sa (.), is assumed to be equal to 1:
G max |C,Sa (y|x) = P[max >y|collapse, Sa = x] = 1
(5)
Using the above assumption, Equation (4) can be re-written as follows:

G max |Sa (y|x) = G max |N C,Sa (y|x)PN C|Sa (x)+(1 PN C|Sa (x))
Copyright q
(6)

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
956
Replacing the above expression for G max |Sa (.) in Equation (3), we obtain an expression for drift
hazard in the region of global dynamic instability or collapse in the structure:

max (y) = [G max |N C,Sa (y|x)PN C|Sa (x)+1 PN C|Sa (x)]|d Sa (x)|
(7)
x
Equation (7) provides an alternative expression for drift hazard in which the collapse cases are
explicitly addressed. It will be demonstrated later in this paper how non-linear dynamic analysis
procedures can be employed to make demand assessments in the range of large displacements
based on the alternative expression for drift hazard in Equation (7). It can be noted that for small y
values Equation (7) reduces to Equation (3) and that for large y it is equal to the mean annual
frequency of the collapse limit state.
4.2. Demand and capacity factored design format
The probabilistic design criterion corresponding to a particular limit state, LS, can be expressed
in terms of the likelihood of not exceeding the threshold of acceptable probability level:
LS Po
(8)
where Po is the acceptable level associated with exceeding limit state LS. Examples of limit states
might be fracturing of connections in a steel moment frame or yielding of beam reinforcement in
a reinforced concrete frame. The choice of a value for acceptable or tolerable rate of exceeding
the limit state, Po , depends on the particular objectives sought in the design of the structure. After
making a set of assumptions and some re-arranging, involving taking the demand-related terms to
one side and the capacity-related ones to the other, the analytic form for a DCFD format can be
derived as illustrated in Equation (9) below. The reader can refer to a report by the authors [3] for
a complete description of the derivation
FC FD(Po )
2
)
FC = CLS exp( 12 (k/b)C
LS
(9)
FD = max | Po Sa exp( 12 (k/b)2max |Sa )

where Po Sa is the spectral acceleration value with a mean annual frequency of being exceeded
equal to Po , max | Po Sa is the median max at a spectral acceleration equal to Po Sa , max |Sa is the
fractional standard deviation (i.e. standard deviation of the natural logarithm) of demand given the
spectral acceleration level Sa , and b is the slope of the (logarithm of ) median displacement-demand
versus spectral acceleration curve if it is approximated by a power-law function of the form a Sa b .
Also, CLS is the median capacity and CLS is the fractional standard deviation of capacity. k is the
slope of the (logarithm of) spectral acceleration hazard curve if it is approximated by a power-law
function of the form k0 x k . Therefore, k/b is a sensitivity factor reflecting the change in the
probability with respect to the change in the displacement-based demand.
In order to derive Equation (9), it has been assumed that the demand given spectral acceleration and the capacity can both be described by lognormal probability distributions denoted by
LN(max | Po Sa , max |Sa ) and LN(CLS , CLS ), respectively. It is also assumed that the spectral acceleration hazard curve and median demand-spectral acceleration relationship can be represented, at
least over a local region sufficiently wide to yield reasonable numerical accuracy, by power-lawtype expressions in the form Sa (x) = k0 x k and max |Sa = a Sa b , respectively. It is also assumed
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
957
implicitly that the probability of global collapse is negligible in the range of ground motion and
displacements under consideration; this is equivalent to assuming that PN C|Sa (x) = 1 PC|Sa (x) = 1
for all spectral acceleration values. Under these conditions all or virtually all the dynamic analysis
output for drift demand given different spectral acceleration levels converge and are reliable.
Equation (9) states the DCFD design criterion, which corresponds to deciding whether the
factored demand, denoted by FD(Po ) at tolerable probability Po is less than or equal to factored
capacity, denoted by FC. Equality is achieved when the mean annual frequency LS of exceeding
the limit state LS is equal to the allowable probability, Po . DCFD design format in Equation (9)
can be viewed as an alternative representation of the probabilistic design criterion in Equation (8),
where the design criterion is expressed in terms of structural response parameters instead of
probabilities or annual frequencies. This quality facilitates both incorporating the DCFD design
criteria within common structural engineering guidelines and the analyses needed to conduct a
probability-based assessment.
4.3. Drift hazard and factored demand
Based on the same set of simplifying assumptions outlined in the derivation of the DCFD design
criterion, an analytic closed-form solution for the drift hazard in Equation (3) can be derived
(see [3] for the details of its derivation):
max (x) = Sa (Sax ) exp( 12 (k 2 /b2 )2max |Sa ) = Sa (1
P
max | o Sa
) exp( 12 (k 2 /b2 )2max |Sa )
(10)
where Sax denotes the spectral acceleration that corresponds to a drift equal to x. More precisely, Sax
1/b . This is the spectral acceleration
is the inverse of x = max |Sax = a (Sax )b , i.e. Sax = 1
max |Sax = (x/a)
value that has (approximately) a 50% chance of causing a drift response equal to or greater than x.
Sa (Sax ) is the spectral acceleration hazard value for (i.e. the mean annual frequency of exceeding)
Sax . It can be shown that (see [3]) factored demand at allowable probability Po is equal to the
maximum inter-story drift value with mean annual frequency of being exceeded (drift hazard)
equal to, Po , namely:
Po = max (FD(Po ))
(11)
Exploiting the relationship between factored demand and drift hazard in Equation (10), the
probabilistic demand PD(Po ) at allowable probability Po is defined as follows:
PD(Po ) = 1
max (Po )
(12)
where the probabilistic demand at allowable probability Po is the demand value that will be
exceeded with a mean annual frequency of Po . In the special case where the drift hazard is
expressed by the analytic form in Equation (10), the probabilistic demand at Po will be equal to
the factored demand at Po . The term PD(Po ) is introduced as a parallel to factored demand. Being
defined in terms of max , the probabilistic demand is not necessarily confined by the assumptions
that underlie the derivation of factored demand. For example, if the structural displacement demand
is so large that it is close to the onset of global stability in the structure, its probability distribution
given spectral accelerationmost likelyis not going to be described by a lognormal probability
distribution and the definitions proposed in Equation (9) are not going to be sufficient for obtaining
factored demand and factored capacity. Probabilistic demand provides us a bench-mark against
which the factored demand calculated based on the DCFD formulation can be compared.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
958
5. SITE-SPECIFIC HAZARD CURVE

The hazard value Sa (x) at spectral acceleration Sa = x is defined as the mean annual frequency
that the intensity of the future ground motion events occurring at the site are greater than or equal
to a specific value. As proposed by the development underlying Department of Energy Standard
1020 (see [22, 23]), one can fit a power-law type of expression to the hazard curve:
Sa P(Sa x) = k0 x k
(13)
Mean annual frequency of exceedance
Sa
where k0 and k are the parameters defining the power-law approximation. In fact, one of the
assumptions underlying the derivation of the DCFD closed-form is that Sa (x) be represented by
the power-law form in Equation (13). Hence, in order to obtain k0 and k estimates for the purpose
of DCFD performance assessments, one needs to obtain a proper linear approximation of the given
spectral acceleration hazard curve. This can be achieved by fitting a line to the (logarithm of) the
hazard curve in the region of interest; the region of interest can be determined based on the limit
state LS for which the performance assessments are done. For instance, if the region of interest
corresponds to (rare) earthquake ground-motions with a rate of being exceeded of about 2% in 50
years, one needs to fit a line to the hazard curve around Sa value that corresponds to a hazard value
of 2% in 50 years. Figure 2 shows (on a two-way logarithmic scale) a site-specific hazard curve
calculated for a site located in Van Nuys, CA, at T = 0.85 s, T being (close to) the first natural
period of the structure. The figure also illustrates a linear approximation at annual frequency of
2
about 1000
(i.e. 10% in 50 years). The (absolute value of the) slope of the fitted line is the k value
in the region of interest; here, it is equal to 2.6.
In the framework of DCFD performance assessments, the hazard for spectral acceleration is
also needed to obtain the spectral acceleration value Po Sa corresponding to a specified tolerable
exceedance rate Po . Figure 2 also shows Po Sa values at two different tolerable probability levels of
10 0
10 1
10 2
Po=0.03
k=2.6
Po=0.0084
10
10 4
10 1
100
Sa(T=0.85 sec) [g]
101
Figure 2. A site-specific hazard Curve, Van Nuys, CA. The hazard curve is approximated by a line (on
the two-way logarithmic paper) in the region of interest.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
959
Po = 0.0084 and 0.03. The probability levels are marked on the hazard axis and their corresponding
spectral acceleration values, Po Sa = 0.70g and 0.40g, respectively, are calculated by finding the Sa
value that corresponds to a hazard level, Po , via the hazard curve.
6. ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR DEMAND ESTIMATION USING NON-LINEAR

DYNAMIC PROCEDURES
The non-linear dynamic procedures discussed in this section are classified into two groups. The
first group, nominated as wide-range, is suitable for making probabilistic assessments over a wide
range of tolerable probability levels. MSA and incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) are two such
methods. Multiple-stripe analysis is suitable for making probability-based assessments for a (wide)
range of spectral acceleration values and/or limit states and IDA can be implemented in order to
locate the onset of global dynamic instability (collapse capacity) in the structure. The second group,
nominated as narrow-range, is suitable for making probabilistic assessments for a tight interval
of tolerable probability values. Single-stripe analysis and double-stripe analysis are examples of
the narrow-range methods discussed in this section; they can be useful for making performance
assessments when limiting the number of structural analyses is a priority.
6.1. Multiple-stripe analysis (MSA)
MSA, as suggested by its name, refers to a group of stripe analyses performed at multiple spectral
acceleration levels, where a stripe analysis consists of structural analyses for a suite of ground
motion records that are scaled to a common spectral acceleration. The suite of ground motion
records used for performing each stripe analysis should ideally be representative of the seismic
threat at the corresponding spectral acceleration; however, it is common but not necessarily always
well justified (e.g. [8, 12, 21]) to use the same suite of records for all the spectral acceleration
levels.
Figure 3 illustrates the MSA results for the suite of ground motion records used in this study.
The collapsing cases (full circles) are distinguished from the non-collapsing ones, where the
onset of collapse for a ground motion record is identified as the point where maximum inter-story
drift response increases drastically when the spectral acceleration of the record is increased by
a small amount. Later in this paper, in the section discussing IDA, the onset of collapse for a
given ground motion record will be defined in more precise terms.
6.2. Using MSA results to calculate the drift hazard
The results of MSA can be used to calculate the drift hazard directly from Equation (3). More
specifically, the CCDF for demand for a given spectral acceleration, G max |Sa (y|x) in Equation (3) is
estimated by the fraction of the stripe response that exceeds the value, y, for a spectral acceleration
equal to x at each stripe (this fraction is also known as the Empirical Distribution, see [24]). The
spectral acceleration hazard function Sa is estimated by the hazard curve in Figure 2. We have
calculated the drift hazard from Equation (3) using numerical integration for multiple values of
drift, y, and have plotted the resulting drift hazard curve in Figure 4 (thick line). The numerical
integration can be conducted in any number of ways; we simply interpolated linearly the hazard
curve for spectral acceleration and the CCDF for demand given spectral acceleration. In calculating
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
960
Sa(T1) [g]s
10 0
collapse "cases"
Figure 3. Multiple-stripe analysis for the existing RC frame using the suite of 30 ground-motion recordings
in Table I; collapse points are identified.
the drift hazard in this section, we ignored the distinction between collapsing points and noncollapsing ones and included all the data points. This was possible since we did not have any
non-convergence cases in which the structural response is simply not available.
We have used the resulting drift hazard curve in Figure 4 to obtain the probabilistic demand
values at two tolerable annual annual frequency levels equal to Po = 0.0084 and Po = 0.03. The
smaller probability level, Po = 0.0084, is a probability level that we believe is associated with
the structure being on the verge of collapse (this particular probability level has been chosen
merely for demonstration purposes). Therefore, it poses a severe test to the analytical expression
for DCFD format (Equation (9)), permitting us to demonstrate its potential limitations. The larger
Po level is associated with the onset of damage in structural member. At this level, the analytical
approximations are expected to be quite robust. The probabilistic demand associated with Po = 0.03
is equal to 0.7%, which is close to a global ductility of one with respect to the onset of significant
damage in the structure, as judged by Figure 1. For a tolerable probability level of Po = 0.0084,
the probabilistic demand equal to, 2%, which corresponds to a ductility of 3 relative to the onset
of significant structural damage.
The probabilistic demand values obtained from the drift hazard curve in this section are going
to be used to benchmark the factored demand estimates obtained later in this paper. We are going
to refer to the results here as the best estimate for demand because they are obtained based on
a less restrictive set of assumptions compared with the factored demand estimates. It should be
kept in mind that even our best estimate is subject to various sources of uncertainty not dealt
with explicitly here, including those associated with structural modeling, limited sample size, and
spectral acceleration hazard estimation.
We have sometimes used the term probability in order to refer to the mean annual frequency of exceedance, since,
for the type of rare events studied, the corresponding numerical values are very close (and small).
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
961
Table I. Ground motion records for 6.5M7.0 and 15r 30 km selected from PEER Database;
soil type: C, D (Geo-Matrix); r closest distance to fault rupture; M moment magnitude; SS: strike slip;
RN: reverse thrust; RO: reverse-oblique.
ID
Earthquake
Station & Comp
Mech
Sa (T1 )
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Loma Prieta 10/18/89

Northridge 01/17/94
Imperial Valley 10/15/79
San Fernando 02/09/71
Northridge 01/17/94
Superstition Hills(B) 11/24/87
Superstition Hills 11/24/87
San Fernando 02/09/71
Agnews State Hospital, 090

LA, Baldwin Hill, 090
Compuertas, 285
Plaster City, 135
Hollister Diff Array, 255
LA, Hollywood Stor Lot, 180
Anderson Dam (Downst), 270
Coyote Lake Dam (Downst), 285
El Centro Array #12, 140
Cucapah, 085
LA, Hollywood Stor FF, 360
Sunnyvale, Colton Ave, 270
Anderson Dam (Downst), 360
Chihuahua, 012
Westmorland Fire Station, 090
Hollister South & Pine, 000
Sunnyvale, Colton Ave., 360
Wildlife Liquefaction Array, 090
Chihuahua, 282
Westmorland Fire Station, 180
Halls Valley, 090
Waho, 000
Wildlife Liquefaction Array, 360
Compuertas, 015
Plaster City, 045
Hollister Diff Array, 165
LA, Hollywood Stor Lot, 090
Waho, 090
6.9
6.7
6.5
6.5
6.9
6.6
6.9
6.9
6.5
6.5
6.7
6.9
6.9
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.9
6.9
6.7
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.9
6.9
6.7
6.5
6.5
6.9
6.6
6.9
28.2
31.3
32.6
31.7
25.8
21.2
21.4
22.3
18.2
23.6
25.5
28.8
21.4
28.7
21.9
15.1
28.8
28.8
24.4
28.7
21.9
15.1
31.6
16.9
24.4
32.6
31.7
25.8
21.2
16.9
RO
RN
SS
SS
RO
RN
RO
RO
SS
SS
RN
RO
RO
SS
SS
SS
RO
RO
SS
SS
SS
SS
RO
RO
SS
SS
SS
RO
RN
RO
0.23
0.25
0.081
0.06
0.67
0.14
0.29
0.29
0.18
0.40
0.61
0.36
0.31
0.51
0.13
0.10
1.02
0.25
0.26
0.63
0.11
0.13
0.22
0.80
0.53
0.16
0.03
0.67
0.30
0.72
6.2.1. Using MSA results to calculate drift hazard in the range of global dynamic instability. Just
as with G max |Sa (y|x), the conditioned-on-non-collapse CCDF, G max |NC,Sa (y|x) can be estimated
by fitting an Empirical Distribution to MSA data. The only difference is that the samples are
conditioned not only on spectral acceleration but also on non-collapse, meaning that for each
stripe analysis level in Figure 3, we discard the full circles and consider only the remaining
data points as our samples. The probability of non-collapse, PNC|Sa (x), can also be estimated
empirically by the fraction of the non-collapse data points (i.e. thin circles) at each stripe . Once
we have estimated G max |NC,Sa (y|x) and PNC|Sa (x), we can calculate the drift hazard numerically
from Equation (7). The resulting drift hazard is plotted (dashed line) in Figure 4 together with
the drift hazard obtained above without treating the collapse data separately. It can be observed
that the two curves are identical for the low drift values where the probability of collapse given
spectral acceleration is small. This was expected because the drift hazard at small values of drift
demand converges to the drift hazard given no-collapse (as noted before). However, the two curves
start to diverge as the drift demand values become larger and the drift hazard considering the
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
962
Mean annual frequency of exceedance max
100
"collpase" case NOT explicitly considered
"collpase" case explicitly considered
Po=0.03
P =0.0084
o
PD(0.03)=0.007
PD(0.0084)=0.02
Figure 4. Drift hazard curve calculated by numerical integration of Equations (3) (thick line) and
(7) (dashed line) considering explicitly for collapse cases. The probabilistic demand estimates at
Po from both curves are also shown on the plot.
collapse information approaches its lower limit, which is the mean annual frequency of exceeding
the collapse limit state, LS (as also noted before). The figure also illustrates the probabilistic
demand obtained for the two tolerable probability levels Po = 0.0084 and 0.03 from the drift hazard
curve. We can observe that the allowable probability level of Po = 0.0084 is very close to (but still
greater than) the mean annual frequency of collapse (i.e. the lower limit indicating global dynamic
instability). This is also indicated by the significant difference in the demand estimates (2 versus
2.7% when collapse information is taken into account). The two curves yield identical results
for probabilistic demand at Po = 0.03, which is consistent with the presumption that the structure
has not yet undergone significant damage at this tolerable probability level.
6.3. Using MSA results to estimate factored demand
The results of MSA can also be used to calculate the factored demand from Equation (9); this
entails estimating the parameters max |Sa , max |Sa , and b at each spectral acceleration level. We
have based our calculations on the counted statistics. In order to obtain the counted statistical
parameters of a data set, the data are first sorted in the ascending order. The counted median of
the data is the drift value such that 50% of the points lie below it. The counted fractional standard
deviation is estimated here by the average of ln(84th /50th ) and ln(50th /16th ), where the symbols
16th and 84th denote the drift values corresponding to 16 and 84% percentiles of the ordered
data, respectively. The b value can be estimated as the local tangent or slope of the median curve
for a given spectral acceleration value plotted in the logarithmic scale. The counted 16th, 50th and
84th percentiles of the response for each spectral acceleration level are shown in Figure 5.
The multiple-stripe method provides a picture of how both the general trend (median) and the
dispersion (fractional standard deviation) of the response evolve under incrementally increasing
ground motion levels. Between about 0.80g and 1.10g, the median curve starts to soften, indicating
a more rapid increase in response for a given increase of spectral acceleration value. This is
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Sa(T1) [g]
100
= 0.70g
= 0.40g
o Sa
o Sa
963
b = 2.70
b = 1.60
max|Sa
= 0.007
max |Sa
= 0.0183
Maximum interstory drift ratio, max
Figure 5. MSA: estimates for, max |Sa and b values at
Po S = 0.40g
a
and 0.70g.
accompanied by an increase in fractional standard deviation. The large response dispersion for
spectral acceleration values beyond 1.0g implies that the median is determined with declining
accuracy.
Figure 5 illustrates the application of MSA in obtaining local estimates for max |Sa , max |Sa , and
b-value at Po Sa = 0.40g and 0.70g, which correspond to Po = 0.0084 and 0.03, respectively. The
factored demand at Po = 0.0084 and 0.03 can be calculated from Equation (9) based on the local
parameter estimates, max |Sa , max |Sa and b-value:

1 2.6
1k 2
Po
2

(0.35)
FD( Sa = 0.40) = max | Po Sa exp
= 0.007exp
2 b max |Sa
2 1.6
= 0.0073 = 0.73%
(14)
and
2.6
(0.49)2 ) = 0.0205 = 2.05%
FD( Po Sa = 0.70) = 0.0183exp( 12 2.7
(15)
These estimates are very close to the probabilistic demand values PD(0.03) = 0.7% and
PD(0.0084) = 2%, respectively; which were obtained using numerical integration of Equation (3)
earlier in the paper as the best-estimates for demand.
6.4. Single- and double-stripe analysis
The single-stripe analysis, as its name suggests, involves structural dynamic analyses for a set
of records scaled to a common spectral acceleration value as described before. The output of
single-stripe analysis is referred to here as the stripe response. Similarly, the common spectral
acceleration value is referred to as the spectral acceleration of the stripe. The stripe response can
be used to estimate the median and (fractional) standard deviation for the inter-story drift demand
conditioned on the spectral acceleration of the stripe. The statistical parameter estimations provided
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
964
"First Mode" Sa(T=0.80) [g]s
0.9
=0.0183
max |Sa
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
=0.49
max|Sa
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Figure 6. Stripe response at Po Sa = 0.70. The lognormal distribution fitted to the stripe response based
on its (counted) median and fractional standard deviation are also plotted.
by the stripe analysis depend on the choice of the spectral acceleration to which the records are
scaled. One possibility is to choose the ground motion intensity level that has a probability of
being exceeded equal to the allowable probability level Po .
With this strategy, the spectral acceleration of the stripe is chosen as the spectral acceleration that corresponds to Po = 0.0084 (the probability level corresponding to severe damage)
from the hazard curve (Figure 2) and is equal to Po Sa = 0.70. This choice is driven by the fact that
the median demand at Po Sa appearsas the main parameter affecting the factored demandin
the expression for factored demand FD(Po ) in Equation (9). In order to obtain the stripe
response, the set of ground motion records are scaled to Po Sa = 0.70 and are applied to the model
structure. The maximum inter-story drift ratio response to the set of scaled records is plotted
together with the underlying lognormal distribution model fitted to data, in Figure 6.
The statistical parameters of the stripe response can now be used to estimate the median
and fractional standard deviation at the spectral acceleration . We have calculated the counted
median and counted fractional standard deviation of the stripe response, denoted by max |Sa and
max |Sa , respectively. The counted median and fractional standard deviation of the stripe response at
Po S = 0.70 are equal to 0.0183 and 0.49, respectively. These quantities are also shown in Figure 6
a
together with the lognormal distribution fitted to the stripe response. The arrow on the right-most
part of the graph indicates that there are maximum inter-story drift values larger than 10% (i.e.
relative displacement more than 10% of the story height) and hence not shown in the figure.
This observation is consistent with the large value obtained for dispersion parameter, max |Sa .
The median and fractional standard deviation can also be calculated from the sample mean and
standard deviation of the logarithm of the stripe response, instead of using the counted percentiles.
However, difficulties may ensue if one encounters dynamic runs in which numerical convergence is
not obtained, and/or if very large, unrealistic displacements are produced by the structural analysis
program. The single-stripe response does not provide displacement versus spectral acceleration
slope information; therefore it is unable to estimate the b parameter appearing in the expression for
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
"First Mode" Sa(T=0.80) [g]s
965
10
b=3.60
Figure 7. Double-stripe analysis, estimation of b-value by performing

a second stripe analysis at Po Sa = 0.80.
factored demand (Equation (9)). As a preliminary guess, we assume that the b value is equal to 1,
implying that the median response given spectral acceleration denoted by max |Sa is proportional
to Sa . Elastic behavior and the equal displacement rule [25] are special cases of this condition.
The factored demand, which is calculated using the estimates of max |Sa and max |Sa obtained
from single-stripe analysis method and a b-value of one, is:
2
FD( Po Sa = 0.70) = 0.0183exp( 12 2.6
1 (0.49) ) = 0.01831.366 = 0.025 = 2.5%
(16)
Comparing this result against the probabilistic demand at Po = 0.0084, which is equal to
P D(0.0084) = 2% (Figure 4), we can observe that the single-stripe prediction for factored demand
is significantly larger. We speculate that taking the default value of b = 1 may have led to such
a conservative estimate of the factored demand. This brings up the question of how much extra
analysis effort is required in order to acquire an estimate of the parameter, b. A minimum number
of two stripe responses are necessary for getting information about the b value; hence, we consider
performing a double-stripe method. The double-stripe method consists of two separate singlestripe analyses, namely, the original stripe response plus an additional stripe response sufficiently
close to the original stripe. In this example we place the second stripe at Po Sa = 0.80. The doublestripe response is plotted in Figure 7. The b value is estimated as the slope of the line on the
loglog plot connecting the medians of the two stripes:
ln
b =
max |Sa =0.80

max |Sa =0.70
ln 0.80
0.70
= 3.6
(17)
It should be noted that the estimates for max |Sa and max |Sa are the same as those obtained
for the single-stripe analysis above and the second stripe is used for estimating the b value.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
966
15
10
"collapse cases"
5
0
0
(a)
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
10
"collapse cases"
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
(b)
Figure 8. (a) Histogram for the stripe response at Po Sa = 0.70 and (b) stripe response
de-aggregated into collapse and non-collapse parts.
The factored demand in this case is equal to:

2
FD( Po Sa = 0.70) = 0.0183exp( 12 2.6
3.6 (0.49) ) = 0.01831.09 = 0.020 = 2%
(18)
The result is identical to the probabilistic demand at Po = 0.0084, which has been calculated
by numerical integration. However, we should note that the position of the second stripe, with
respect to the original one, plays a critical role in estimation of the b value. If the second stripe
is too far, the estimated b value may not be representative of the local slope around the original
stripe. If it is too close, the estimated value may fail to represent the general trend in spectral
acceleration versus demand curve. Thus, the accuracy of a double-stripe analysis is dependant on
the analysts judgment in choosing the spacing between the stripes. A suggestion is to choose
the second Sa stripe to be above the original value by a fraction (of that value) equal to 14 or 12
of max |Sa (i.e. Sa2 = Sa1 +fraction max |Sa Sa1 ). The improvement observed in the double-stripe
estimate for factored demand over the single-stripe method, emphasizes the importance of obtaining
local estimates of the b-value in the region of interest especially when the structural response is
close to the onset of global dynamic instability, where b may differ substantially from unity.
6.4.1. Single-stripe analysis in the region of global dynamic instability. As indicated by arrows
in Figures 6 and 7, a number of stripe response values get quite large. Figure 8(a) illustrates the
histogram for the maximum inter-story drift values at Po Sa = 0.70g. If the onset of global dynamic
instability in the structure is identified by maximum inter-story drift values more than 5%, we can
detect four cases of collapse from the histogram. In the previous sections, the stripe response
was used to estimate only the first two moments of the response for a given spectral acceleration.
Assuming that the stripe response is described by a log-normal distribution, these two moments are
sufficient for obtaining the full distribution of response for a given spectral acceleration. However,
in the presence of too many collapse points in the stripe response, the log-normal assumption may
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
967
not be very suitable. The probability that the stripe response exceeds a given value can be written
in a more general manner by distinguishing between collapse and no collapse response values
(Equation (6)). In order to derive Equation (6) it was assumed that the probability of exceeding
max given that collapse has taken place is equal to one. Loosely speaking, this means that we
lump all the collapse max values at some arbitrarily large value on the maximum inter-story drift
axis, as it is schematically shown in Figure 8(b).
The data provided by the stripe response can be used to estimate the probability distribution
for the demand G max |Sa (y|x) at Po Sa = 0.70g using Equation (6). The (counted) median and
fractional standard deviation of the non-collapse portion of the data can be calculated as explained
before. Assuming that the non-collapse portion of the data is described by a log-normal probability
distribution, median and fractional standard deviation are sufficient for calculating G max |NC,Sa (y|x).
Moreover, the probability of non-collapse at Po Sa = 0.70g can be estimated by the ratio of noncollapse cases to the total number of structural analyses. For example, PNC|Sa (0.70) is equal to
26
30 = 0.87.
The factored demand given that collapse has not taken place (hereafter referred to as: given no
collapse) denoted by FD( Po Sa |NC) can also be calculated using the median and fractional standard
deviation of the non-collapse portion of the stripe response:
2
FD( Po Sa = 0.70|NC) = 0.016exp( 12 2.6
1 (0.46) ) = 0.01631.24 = 0.021 = 2.1%
(19)
It can be noted that the (counted) median and standard deviation of the non-collapse part of
the stripe response are equal to 1.6% and 0.46; whereas the same (counted) statistics calculated
using the entire stripe response were equal to 1.8% and 0.49 respectively. Also, the factored
demand at Po Sa = 0.70g given no collapse takes place is equal to 2.1%; whereas the factored
demand calculated without making the collapse/no collapse distinction was calculated to be equal
to 2.5%. This is another way of representing factored demand, namely, reporting the estimated
FD( Po Sa = 0.70|NC) = 2.1% together with the estimated probability of non-collapse at Po Sa =
0.70g, PNC|Sa (0.70) = 0.87. The probability of non-collapse at the spectral acceleration of the
stripe, which is equal to the fraction of non-collapse cases in the stripe response, could also be
regarded as an indication of how far the structure is from the regime of global dynamic instability.
In other words, the lower the probability of non-collapse for the stripe, the larger the fraction of
collapsing cases. This could be an indicative of severe non-linearity in the structure.
6.5. Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA)
IDA [4] consists of obtaining a suite of IDA response curves for a suite of ground motion records,
where an IDA curve demonstrates the changes in a specific structural response parameter when the
structure is subjected to a particular ground motion record scaled to successively increasing levels
of intensity. Having a format similar to the familiar forcedisplacement curve for the response
of an single degrees of freedom system to a monotonically increasing static load, the IDA curve
provides unique information about the nature of the structural response of an multiple degrees of
freedom system to a ground motion record.
Alternative curve-fitting routines such as a spline fit can be used to get smooth IDA curves
[4]. In lieu of employing curve-fitting routines, one can simply connect the response points, for
a given ground motion record, by straight lines in order to obtain a (non-smooth) IDA curve; as
is illustrated in Figure 9. These IDA curves correspond to the suite of 30 ground motion records
used in this paper. It should be noted that the data represented in Figure 9 are the same as the
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
968
Spectral acceleration Sa [g]s
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
Figure 9. IDA curves with the corresponding onset of global dynamic instability or the collapse points.
The lognormal probability distributions fitted to the spectral acceleration and the maximum inter-story
drift ratio of the collapse points are also shown on the figure.
multiple-stripe data presented in Figure 3. Therefore, the IDA results would provide the same
estimates for factored demand as those presented for MSA. However, unlike MSA, which could
(potentially) be done using different sets of records at different intensities, the IDA results pertain
to a fixed set of ground motion records.
6.6. Capacity estimation using the results of IDA
Earlier in this paper, we studied demand estimations in the range of global dynamic instability
in the structure. We are particularly interested in this behavior range because structural response
estimation close to instability can pose a severe challenge to the assumptions underlying the closedform and analytic formulation of DCFD and also because the non-converging cases observed in the
structural response calculations are often caused by the global instability in the dynamic response.
Global instability is identified by an arbitrarily large increase in displacement response subjected
to a small increment in ground motion intensity. This particular behavior is well captured by an
IDA curve. Following the definition in the FEMA/SAC Guidelines (see [26]), we have identified
the onset of such behavior by a point where the local slope of the IDA curve decreases to a certain
percentage of the initial slope of the IDA curve in the elastic region (Figure 9). This percentage
is a more or less an arbitrary value that represents the point where the IDA curve becomes flat
enough; here, we have chosen it to be equal to 16.6% ( 16 ). We can clearly observe the scatter in
the capacity points for the different ground motion records in Figure 9.
6.6.1. Estimation of factored capacity using the results of IDA. Figure 9 also illustrates the
collapse points on the IDA curves; the collapse coordinates for each ground motion record
consists of maximum inter-story drift ratio and the corresponding spectral acceleration value. The
log-normal curves fitted to these collapse coordinates based on their corresponding medians and
fractional standard deviations are also shown in the figure. Similar to factored demand estimation,
this information can be used for estimating the factored (displacement) capacity from Equation (9).
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
969
We have estimated the b-value to be equal to 4; that is, the local slope of the median MSA curve
(Figure 5) in the vicinity of the median maximum inter-story drift capacity (shown in Figure 9):

1 2.6
1k 2
C = 0.0278exp
0.412 = 0.02780.95 = 0.026 = 2.6%
FC = C exp
(20)
2b
2 4
By calculating the factored capacity, we can now make a performance assessment of the structure
for the global dynamic instability limit state based on the DCFD format and at the allowable
probability level, Po . Recalling from previous sections, we arrived at the same numerical value for
factored drift demand, FD(Po = 0.0084) = 2%, by pursuing alternative strategies; namely, factored
demand estimation using MSA, double-stripe analysis, and direct numerical integration of Equation
(3). We can easily verify that the factored demand at Po = 0.0084 satisfies the DCFD design
criterion in Equation (9) for the structural limit state of global dynamic instability.
6.7. Estimation of the mean annual frequency of exceeding a limit state
We can also calculate directly the mean annual frequency of exceeding the global instability limit
state (or mean annual frequency of collapse), LS , from Equation (2); where, the cumulative distribution function (CDF) for limit state capacity, FCLS (y), is estimated by an Empirical Distribution
fit to the maximum inter-story drift capacity points in Figure 9. This computation results in an
estimated mean annual frequency collapse, LS , equal to 0.0063. An alternative way for calculating LS is to obtain the lower limit of the drift hazard from Equation (7), which is derived by
explicitly accounting for the collapse cases. The performance of the structure for the limit state of
global dynamic instability can also be checked according to the criterion stated in Equation (8) by
comparing the allowable probability level Po against the mean annual frequency of collapse.
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Probability-based seismic performance assessment of a structure can be based on the results from
alternative non-linear dynamic analysis procedures. These methods can be used both to obtain
parameter estimates for specific probabilistic assessment criteria such as demand and capacity
factored design (DCFD) and also to make direct performance assessments using numerical integration methods. This paper describes how non-linear dynamic analysis procedures can be used
in order to make parameter estimates in the context of the probability-based DCFD criterion for
structural performance assessment for multiple performance levels. Alternatively, the structural
performance can be evaluated by calculating directly the expression for the mean annual frequency
of exceeding a desirable performance level using numerical methods. The results of such direct
performance assessments can be used as a basis for bench-marking evaluations based on the DCFD
assessment criteria and when the assumptions underlying the derivation of its closed-form are not
satisfied. The performance of a case-study structure for the limit state of global dynamic instability
is checked both by directly comparing the allowable probability level to the mean annual frequency
of collapse and also using the DCFD design criterion. These alternatives criteria provide consistent
conclusions about the safety of the structure for the limit state of global dynamic instability.
Two types of alternative non-linear dynamic analysis methods are presented in this paper. The
methods classified in the first group (which can be referred to as the wide-range methods) map out
the structural response to a wide range of ground motion intensity and structural response levels.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
970
Table II. Alternative non-linear dynamic analysis methods for probability levels Po = 0.03 and Po = 0.0084;
number of analyses needed to achieve 20% standard error; N is the number of stripes (e.g. N = 20).
Method
MSA at Po = 0.03
Single-stripe at Po = 0.03
Double-stripe at Po = 0.03
MSA at Po = 0.0084
Single-stripe at Po = 0.0084
Double-stripe at Po = 0.0084
No. Analyses
Local estimates
Comments
3 N
3
6
6 N
6
12
max |Sa , max |Sa and b

max |Sa and max |Sa
max |Sa and max |Sa
Most accurate
Least accurate
Careful selection of the second stripe
Most accurate
Least accurate
Careful selection of the second stripe
MSA and IDA are examples of wide-range non-linear dynamic analysis methods discussed here.
It has been demonstrated how these non-linear dynamic analysis procedures can be implemented
for the performance assessments for two different tolerable probability levels that translate into
two distinct structural performances levels. The performance assessments include the limiting case
in structural behavior when the structural response increases to an arbitrarily large amount due to
a small increment in ground motion intensity. Demand and capacity estimations for this limiting
case, which is referred to as the global dynamic instability or the collapse limit state, may face
implications that are discussed in this paper. Similar implications arise when structural response
is non-available due to numerical non-convergence in the structural analysis calculations.
The second group, referred to as the narrow-range methods, as the name suggests have limited
(narrow) range of applicability for probability-based performance assessments. Stripe analysis
is an example of narrow-range methods, in which the demand parameters in DCFD format are
estimated locally in the vicinity of the allowable probability of interest. It is demonstrated that the
accuracy of the single-stripe method can be improved significantly by performing stripe analysis
for another (sufficiently close) spectral acceleration level; the ensemble of the two stripe analyses
is referred to as double-stripe analysis.
The alternative non-linear dynamic analysis methods discussed in the paper are synthesized in
Table II for the two limit states considered herein represented by probability levels Po = 0.03 and
Po = 0.0084. The number of analyses needed for yielding a standard error (in the estimation of the
mean drift demand given spectral acceleration) equal to 20% are outlined in the table. It can be
observed that, for all methods considered, the number of analyses required for the probability level
Po = 0.03 (150% in 50 years) is about half of that required for the probability level Po = 0.0084
(42% in 50 years). Also it can be observed that the MSA analysis is able to provide both local
estimates for mean and standard deviation of demand and the b-value for each stripe. However,
it needs a large number of structural analyses. On the other hand, the single stripe analsis needs
minimal number of analyses but is unable to yield a local estimate of the b-value. Double-stripe
analysis needs twice the number of analyses needed for single-stripe analysis but it is able to provide
a local estimate for the b-value if the second stripe is spaced close enough to the original one.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The first author would like to mention the passing away of the second author, the late C. Allin Cornell,
in December 2007. This work was almost completed before his passing away with the exception of some
editorial modifications (the paper was originally written in two parts, which are now united in a single
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
971
article). He has been a teacher and a mentor to the first author ever since the first author started her
PhD in 1998. The contributions of the late C. Allin Cornell to earthquake engineering and seismology
are evident from his research beginning from the 1960s. His profound vision, sharp thinking and distinct
approach to problem-solving will continue to be an inspiration to the first author.
REFERENCES
1. Wen YK. Reliability and performance-based design. Structural Safety 2001; 23:407428.
2. Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO, Foutch DA. The probabilistic basis for the 2000 SAC/FEMA steel
moment frame guidelines. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 2002; 128(4):526533.
3. Jalayer F, Cornell CA. A technical framework for probability-based demand and capacity factor design (DCFD)
seismic formats. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report, 2003; 2003/08.
4. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
2001; 31(3):491514.
5. Cordova PP, Deierlein GG, Mehanny SSF, Cornell CA. Development of a two-parameter seismic intensity measure
and probabilistic assessment procedure. The Second USJapan Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake
Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete Building Structures, Sapporo, Japan, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Center (PEER), 2000; 2000/10; 195214.
6. Medina R, Krawinkler H. Seismic Demands for non-deteriorating frame structures and their dependence on
ground motions. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center (PEER), 2003; 2003/15.
7. Jalayer F, Franchin P, Pinto PE. A scalar damage measure for seismic reliability analysis of RC frames. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36(13):20592079.
8. Baker JW. Probabilistic structural response assessment using vector-valued intensity measures. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36(13):18611883.
9. Tothong P, Cornell CA. Structural performance assessment under near-source pulse-like ground motions using
advanced ground motion intensity measures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2008; 37:
10131037.
10. Shome N, Cornell CA, Bazzurro P, Carballo JE. Earthquakes, records and nonlinear responses. Earthquake
Spectra 1998; 14(3):469500.
11. Luco N, Cornell CA. Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground
motions. Earthquake Spectra 2007; 23(2):357392.
12. Baker JW, Cornell CA. Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 2006; 35(9):10771095.
13. Pincheira JA, Dotiwala FS, DSouza JT. Seismic analysis of older reinforced concrete columns. Earthquake
Spectra 1999; 15(2):245272.
14. Dotiwala FS, DSouza JT, Pincheira JA. Drain2D-UW Users Manual. Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of WisconsinMadison, 1998.
15. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center: PEER Strong Motion Database. http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat/
[16 September 2008].
16. McGuire RK. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: closing the loop. Bulletin of Seismic
Society of America 1995; 85(5):12751284.
17. Bazzurro P, Cornell CA. On disaggregation of seismic hazard. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America 1999;
89(2):501520.
18. Alavi B, Krawinkler H. Consideration of near-fault ground motion effects in seismic design. Proceedings of 12th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. 2665. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering:
Upper Hutt, New Zealand, 2000.
19. Iervolino I, Cornell CA. Record selection for non-linear seismic analysis of structures. Earthquake Spectra 2005;
21(3):685713.
20. Luco N, Bazzurro P. Effects of ground motion scaling on non-linear structural response. PEER Life Line Report,
1G00, 31 December 2003.
21. Shome N, Cornell CA. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. RMS Program, Report No.
RMS35 (Ph.D. Thesis), Stanford University, May 1999.
22. Kennedy RP, Short SA. Basis for seismic provisions of DOE-STD-1020. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
and Brookhaven National Laboratory, Report Numbers UCRL-CR-111478 and BNL-52418, 1994.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
972
23. Luco N, Cornell CA. Seismic drift demands for two SMRF structures with brittle connections. Structural
Engineering World Wide. Elsevier Science Ltd.: Oxford, England, 1998. Paper T158-3.
24. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An Introduction to Bootstrap. Chapman & Hall/CRC: London, Boca Raton, FL, 1993.
25. Veletsos AS, Newmark NM. Effect of inelastic behavior on the response of simple systems to earthquake motions.
Proceedings of the Second World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Japan, Tokyo, vol. II, 1960; 895912.
26. Yun SY, Hamburger RO, Cornell CA, Foutch DA. Seismic performance evaluation for steel moment frames.
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 2002; 128(4):534545.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

Jalayer Et Al-2009-Earthquake Engineering &amp; Structural Dynamics-2

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Jalayer Et Al-2009-Earthquake Engineering &amp; Structural Dynamics-2

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:951972

Alternative non-linear demand estimation methods for

probabilistic seismic assessments; non-linear dynamic analysis; demand and capacity

2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

F. JALAYER AND C. A. CORNELL

2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:951972

ALTERNATIVE NON-LINEAR DEMAND ESTIMATION METHODS

2. A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT EXAMPLE: AN OLDER REINFORCED

2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:951972

F. JALAYER AND C. A. CORNELL

Base shear [kg]'s

4. PROBABILISTIC FRAMEWORK FOR DESIGN AND ASSESSMENT OF STRUCTURES

2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:951972

ALTERNATIVE NON-LINEAR DEMAND ESTIMATION METHODS

Using the above assumption, Equation (4) can be re-written as follows:

2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:951972

F. JALAYER AND C. A. CORNELL

FD = max | Po Sa exp( 12 (k/b)2max |Sa )

2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:951972

ALTERNATIVE NON-LINEAR DEMAND ESTIMATION METHODS

) exp( 12 (k 2 /b2 )2max |Sa )

2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:951972

F. JALAYER AND C. A. CORNELL

5. SITE-SPECIFIC HAZARD CURVE

Mean annual frequency of exceedance

2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:951972

ALTERNATIVE NON-LINEAR DEMAND ESTIMATION METHODS

6. ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR DEMAND ESTIMATION USING NON-LINEAR

2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:951972

F. JALAYER AND C. A. CORNELL

2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:951972

ALTERNATIVE NON-LINEAR DEMAND ESTIMATION METHODS

Station & Comp

Loma Prieta 10/18/89

Agnews State Hospital, 090

2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:951972

F. JALAYER AND C. A. CORNELL

2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:951972

ALTERNATIVE NON-LINEAR DEMAND ESTIMATION METHODS

Maximum interstory drift ratio, max

Figure 5. MSA: estimates for, max |Sa and b values at

2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:951972

F. JALAYER AND C. A. CORNELL

"First Mode" Sa(T=0.80) [g]s

2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:951972

"First Mode" Sa(T=0.80) [g]s

ALTERNATIVE NON-LINEAR DEMAND ESTIMATION METHODS

Figure 7. Double-stripe analysis, estimation of b-value by performing

max |Sa =0.80

2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Jalayer Et Al-2009-Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics-2

Jalayer Et Al-2009-Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics-2

FD = max | Po Sa exp( 12 (k/b)2max |Sa )

) exp( 12 (k 2 /b2 )2max |Sa )

max |Sa , max |Sa and b