The effects of the variability of seismic input on system structural response are investigated. Non linear time history analyses are performed using as input sets of accelerograms satisfying the compatibility criteria with an elastic design spectrum according to the Eurocode 8. The response of elastic SDOF systems, in terms of spectral acceleration, is analyzed; the same parameter, for corresponding non linear SDOF systems as well as ductility demand and strength reduction factors, is also discussed. The analyses are extended to a r/c multi-storey space frame, which is designed according to Eurocode provisions. The main conclusion of the paper is that, when the input is selected according to the Eurocode 8 provisions as recorded accelerograms, a “natural” mean CoV of spectra ordinates is expected; it proportionally conditions the CoV of the parameters characterising the non linear response of structures.
AkkarS. and MirandaM. (2004). “Improved displacement modification factor to estimate maximum deformations of short period structures”, Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada.
2.
AmbraseysN.SmitP.BerardiR.RinaldisD.CottonF. and BergeC. (2000). Dissemination of European Strong-Motion Data (CD-ROM), European Commission, DGXII, Science, Research and Development, Brussels, Belgium. (http://www.isesd.cv.ic.ac.uk)
3.
AmiriG.G. and DanaF.M. (2005). “Introduction of the most suitable parameter for selection of critical earthquake”, Computers and Structures, Vol. 83, No. 8–9, pp. 613–626.
4.
BakerJ.W. and CornellC.A. (2006) “Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 35, No. 9, pp. 1077–1095.
5.
BrunM.ReynouardJ.M.JezequelL. and IleN. (2004). “Damaging potential of low-magnitude near-field earthquakes on low-rise shear walls”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 24, No. 8, pp. 587–603.
6.
ChangH.Y. and KawakamiH. (2006). “Effects of ground motion parameters and cyclic degradation behavior on collapse response of steel moment-resisting frames”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 10, pp. 1553–1562.
7.
ChopraA.K. and ChintanapakdeeC. (2004). “Inelastic deformation ratios for design and evaluation of structures: Single-degree-of-freddom bilinear system”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 9, pp. 1309–1319.
8.
CosenzaE. and ManfrediG. (2000). “Damage indices and damage measures”, Progress in Structural Engineering and Material, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 50–59.
9.
SAP2000 (2004). Linear and Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analysis of Three-Dimensional Structures, Computer & Structures, Inc., Berkeley, California, USA.
10.
DhakalR.P.ManderJ.B. and MashikoN. (2006). “Identification of critical ground motions for seismic performance assessment of structures”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 35, No. 8, pp. 989–1008.
11.
Eurocode 0 (2002). EN 1990: Basis of Structural Design, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
12.
Eurocode 1 (2002). EN 1991-1-1: Actions on Structures, Part 1–1: General Actions-Densities, Self Weight, Imposed Loads for Buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
13.
Eurocode 2 (2004). EN 1992-1-1: Design of Concrete Structures, Part 1–1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
14.
Eurocode 8 (2004). EN 1998–1: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
15.
Eurocode 8 (2005). EN 1998–3: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting for Buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
16.
GiovenaleP.CornellC.A. and EstevaL. (2004). “Comparing the adequacy of alternative ground motion intensity measures for the estimation of structural responses”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 33, No. 8, pp. 951–979.
17.
IervolinoI.GalassoC. and CosenzaE. (2010). “REXEL: Computer aided record selection for code-based seismic structural analysis”, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 339–362.
18.
IervolinoI.MaddaloniG. and CosenzaE. (2008). “Eurocode 8 compliant real record sets for seismic analysis of structures”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 54–90.
19.
KapposA.J. and KyriakakisP. (2000). “A re-evaluation of scaling techniques for natural records”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 20, No. 1–4, pp. 111–123.
20.
KrawinklerH.MedinaR. and AlaviB. (2003). “Seismic drift and ductility demands and their dependence on ground motions”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 637–653.
21.
CANNY99 (1996). Three-Dimensional Nonlinear Dynamic Structural Analysis Computer Program Package, Technical and Users' manual, Canny Consultants Pte Ltd., Singapore.
22.
MagliuloG.MaddaloniG. and CosenzaE. (2007). “Comparison between non linear dynamic analysis performed according to EC8 and elastic and non linear static analyses”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 29, No. 11, pp. 2893–2900.
23.
MagliuloG. and RamascoR. (2007). “Seismic response of three-dimensional r/c multi-storey frame building under uni- and bi-directional input ground motion”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 36, No. 12, pp. 1641–1657.
24.
MagliuloG.MaddaloniG. and CosenzaE. (2012a). “Extension of N2 method to plan irregular buildings considering accidental eccentricity”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 43, pp. 69–84.
25.
MagliuloG.CapozziV. and RamascoR. (2012b). “Seismic performance of R/C frames with overstrength discontinuities in elevation”, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 679–694.
26.
MirandaE. and BerteroV.V. (1994). “Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant design”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 357–379.
27.
PCM (2003). Further Modifications and Integrations to the Decree n. 3274: First Elements Concerning General Criteria for the Seismic Classification of the National Territory and Technical Provisions for Constructions in Seismic Zone, Decree n.3431 of the Prime Minister, Rome, Italy. (in Italian)
28.
PEER (2007). PEER Strong Motion Database, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California, USA. (http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat/data.html.)
29.
PetriniL.PinhoR. and CalviG.M. (2004). Building Seismic Design Criteria, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy. (in Italian)
30.
SunasakaY.TokiK. and KiremidjianA.S. (2003). “Evaluation of damage potential of ground motions during great earthquakes”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 713–30.
31.
Van de LindtJ.W. and GohG.H. (2004). “Effect of earthquake duration on structural reliability”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 26, No. 11, pp. 1585–1597.
32.
WangJ.FanL.QianS. and ZhouJ. (2002). “Simulations of non-stationary frequency content and its importance to seismic assessment of structures”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 993–1005.
