Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
10
0
10
0
10
-1
10
-1
10
-2
10
-2
PGA
PGV
SA
(0.5)
SA
(1.0)
SI
CAV
PGA
PGV
SA
(0.5)
SA
(1.0)
SI
CAV
10
-3
10
-3
10
-4
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
Peak pile head displacement,
U
PH
(m)
Peak deck acceleration,
a
D
(g)
(a)
(b)
4.11
Computation of the seismic demand curve using various
conditioning intensity measures,
IM
j
s for: (a) peak pile head
displacement,
U
PH
; and (b) peak deck acceleration,
a
D
. (modifi ed from
Bradley, 2012a).
PE
= 0.000404
P
E
= 0.000404
CAV
CAV
SI
SI
SA
(1.0
s
)
SA
(1.0
s
)
SA
(0.5
s
)
SA
(0.5
s
)
PGV
PGV
PGA
PGA
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.650.7 0.75 0.8 0.850.9 0.95
Peak pile head displacement,
U
PH
(m)
Peak deck acceleration,
a
D
(g)
4.12
Comparison of the uncertainty in seismic demand curve for an
annual exceedance probability of 4.04
×
10
−
4
(i.e. 2% in 50 years) due
to the fi nite number of ground motions used for each intensity
measure level: (a) peak pile head displacement; and (b) peak deck
acceleration. (after Bradley, 2012a).
the seismic demand curves depicted in Fig. 4.11 can be explained due to the
uncertainty resulting from the fi nite number of ground motions used as
illustrated in Fig. 4.12 (Bradley, 2012a). It can be seen that the uncertainty
in the estimated demands due to bootstrap sample of the fi nite number of
seismic response analyses is large relative to the difference between the
mean values of the demand obtained using different conditioning intensity
measures.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search