Comparison of ASCE/SEI Standard and modal pushover-based ground motion scaling procedures for pre-tensioned concrete bridges

References

• AASHTO. (2010). LRFD bridge design specifications. Washington DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
   Google Scholar
• AASHTO. (2011). LRFD seismic bridge design. Washington DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
   Google Scholar
• AASHTO. (2012). LRFD bridge design specifications. Washington DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
   Google Scholar
• Abrahamson, N. A. (1992). Nonstationary spectral matching. Seismological Research Letters, 63(1), 30.
   Google Scholar
• Atik, L. A., & Abrahamson, N. A. (2010). An improved method for nonstationary spectral matching. Earthquake Spectra, 26, 601–617.10.1193/1.3459159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ASCE. (2005). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE/SEI 7-5. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
   Google Scholar
• ASCE. (2010). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE/SEI 7-10. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, J. W., & Cornell, C. A. (2005). A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34, 1193–1217.10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9845
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, J. W. (2011). Conditional mean spectrum: Tool for ground-motion selection. Journal of Structural Engineering, 137, 322–331.10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000215
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bommer, J. J., & Scott, S. G. (2000). The feasibility of using real accelerograms for seismic design. In A.S. Elnashai, & S. Antoniou , (Eds.), Implications of recent earthquakes on seismic risk (Chapter 9, pp. 115–126). London: Imperial College Press.
   Google Scholar
• CALTRANS. (2013). Seismic design criteria (SDC), Version 1.7. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Transportation.
   Google Scholar
• Chopra, A., & Chintapakdee, C. (2004). Seismic response of vertically irregular frames: Response history and modal pushover analyses. Journal of Structural Engineering, 130, 1177–1185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DLH (2007). Kıyı ve Liman Yapıları, Demiryolları, Havameydanları İnşaatları Deprem Teknik Yönetmeliği [Earthquake Regulations for Coastal and Harbor Structures, Railways and Airports, Ministry of Transportation, Maritime and Communications]. Ankara.
   Google Scholar
• Fahjan, Y. M. (2008). Selection and scaling of real accelerograms to fit the Turkish Design Spectra. Teknik Dergi, 19, 4423–4444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goel, R. K., & Chopra, A. K. (2008). Estimating seismic demands for ‘ordinary’ bridges crossing fault-rupture zones ( Report No. UCB/ EERC-2008/01). Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Graizer, V., & Kalkan, E. (2009). Prediction of response spectral acceleration ordinates based on PGA attenuation. Earthquake Spectra, 25, 36–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hancock, J., Watson-Lamprey, J., Abrahamson, N., Bommer, J., Markatis, A., McCoy, E., & Mendis, R. (2006). An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motion using wavelets. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 10, 67–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hancock, J., & Bommer, J. J. (2007). Using matched records to explore the influence of strong-motion duration on inelastic structural response. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 27, 291–299.10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heo, Y., Kunnath, S. K., & Abrahamson, N. (2011). Amplitude-scaled versus spectrum-matched ground motions for seismic performance assessment. Journal of Structural Engineering, 137, 278–288.10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000340
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalkan, E., & Chopra, A. (2010). Practical guidelines to select and scale earthquake records for nonlinear response history analysis of structures ( US Geological Survey Open-File Report No. 2010-1068: 124). Reston, VA. Retrieved from http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1068/
   Google Scholar
• Kalkan, E., & Chopra, A. (2011). Modal-pushover-based ground-motion scaling procedure. Journal of Structural Engineering, 137, 298–310.10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000308
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalkan, E., & Kwong, N. S. (2012). Assessment of modal-pushover-based scaling procedure for nonlinear response history analysis of ordinary standard bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 17, 272–288.10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000259
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katsanos, E. I., Sextos, A. G., & Manolis, G. D. (2010). Selection of earthquake ground motion records: A state-of-the-art review from a structural engineering perspective. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 30, 157–169.10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.10.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurama, Y., & Farrow, K. (2003). Ground motion scaling methods for different site conditions and structure characteristics. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 32, 2425–2450.10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9845
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lew, M., and Naeim, F. (1996). Use of design spectrum-compatible time histories in analysis of structures. 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, paper no: 326. Acapulco, Mexico.
   Google Scholar
• Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., & Park, R. (1984). Theoretical stress strain model for confined concrete. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 114, 1804–1826.
   Google Scholar
• Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Scott, M. H., & Fenves, G. L. (2006). OpenSees command language manual, open system for earthquake engineering simulation. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center, University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Michaud, D., & Léger, P. (2014). Ground motions selection and scaling for nonlinear dynamic analysis of structures located in Eastern North America. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 41, 232–244.10.1139/cjce-2012-0339
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naeim, F., & Lew, M. (1995). On the use of design spectrum compatible time histories. Earthquake Spectra, 11, 111–127.10.1193/1.1585805
   Google Scholar
• O’Donnell, A., Kurama, Y., Kalkan, E., & Taflanidis, A. (2013). Experimental evaluation of ground motion scaling methods for nonlinear analysis of structural systems. ASCE Structures Congress, Pittsburgh, PA, 2180–2191.
   Google Scholar
• OpenSees. (2009). Open Source finite element platform for earthquake engineering simulations. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center, University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Özgenoğlu, M. (2015). Comparison of ASCE/SEI standard (2010) and modal pushover based ground motion scaling procedures for pre-tensioned concrete bridges ( MSc Thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
   Google Scholar
• PEER. (2013). PEER NGA database. Retrieved February 12, 2015, from http://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/
   Google Scholar
• Reyes, J. C., & Kalkan, E. (2012). How many records should be used in an ASCE/SEI-7 ground motion scaling procedure? Earthquake Spectra, 28, 1223–1242.10.1193/1.4000066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reyes, J. C., Riaño, A. C., Kalkan, E., Quintero, O. A., & Arango, C. M. (2014). Assessment of spectrum matching procedure for nonlinear analysis of symmetric- and asymmetric-plan buildings. Engineering Structures, 72, 171–181.10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.04.035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SAP 2000 (2011). SAP 2000 version 15.0.0. Berkeley, CA: Computers and Structures.
   Google Scholar
• Shome, N., Cornell, C. A., Bazzurro, P., & Carballo, J. E. (1998). Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses. Earthquake Spectra, 14, 469–500.10.1193/1.1586011
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, J. P., Chiou, S.-J., Bray, J. D., Graves, R. W., Somerville, P. G., & Abrahamson, N. A. (2001). Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design ( Report No. PEER 2001-09) (p. 229). Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley.
   Google Scholar
• TUBİTAK KAMAG 110G093. (2015). Türkiye Köprü Mühendisliğinde Tasarım ve Yapıma İlişkin Teknolojilerin Geliştirilmesi Teknik Klavuzu [Technical Guidelines for the Development of Design and Construction Technologies for Bridge Engineering in Turkey]. General Directorate of Highways, Ankara.
   Google Scholar
• UCFYBER. (1999). Cross section analysis structural software. Berkeley, CA: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Vamvatsikos, D., & Cornell, C. A. (2002). Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 31, 491–514.10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9845
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yılmaz-Öztürk, N. (2008). Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: A sensitivity study with respect to different models ( PhD Dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
   Google Scholar