Analysis and modelling of the seismic behaviour of high ... - Ingegneria

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2. DUCTILITY AND SEISMIC RESPONSE OF STRUCTURES 2.6 References Akiyama H. (1985): Earthquake-resistant limit-state design for buildings. University of Tokio Press. ATC – Applied Technology Council (1995): Guidelines and commentary for seismic rehabilitation of buildings. ATC Report 33.03, Redwood City, California. Bertero R.D. and Bertero V.V. (2002): Performance-based seismic engineering: the need for a reliable conceptual comprehensive approach. Earthquake Engineering And Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31, 627–652. Bertero V.V. (1992): Major issues and future directions in earthquake resistant design. In 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, 19-24 July 1992, Balkema, Rotterdam, 6407-6444. Bertero V.V. (1997): Performance-based seismic engineering: a critical review of proposed guidelines. In Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, (Eds. P. Fajfar, H. Krawinkler), Bled, 24-27 June 1997, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1-31. Chopra A. K. (1995): Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering. Chapters 3, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Chopra A.K. and Goel R.K. (1999): Capacity-demand-diagram methods for estimating seismic deformation of inelastic structures: SDoF systems. Report No. PEER-1999/02 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley. Fajfar P. (1995): Design spectra for new generation codes: Eurocode 8 achieves the half-way mark. In 10th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering (Ed. G. Duma), Vienna, 28 August – 2 September 1994, Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 4, 2969-2974. Fajfar P. (1998): Trends in seismic design and performance evaluation approaches. In 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paris, 6 – 11 September 1998, Balkema, Rotterdam, Invited Lectures, 237-249. Fajfar P. and Fischinger M. (1988): N2- A method for non-linear seismic analysis of regular structures. In 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokio-Kyoto, Japan, Vol. 5, 111-116. FEMA 273 (1997): HEHRP Guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Freeman S. A., Nicoletti J. P., and Tyrell J. V. (1975): Evaluations of existing buildings for seismic risk - A case study of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Bremerton, Washington. Proceedings of 1st U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, EERI, Berkeley, 113-122. 37
2. DUCTILITY AND SEISMIC RESPONSE OF STRUCTURES 38 Freeman S. A. (1978): Prediction of response of concrete buildings to severe earthquake motion. Publication SP-55, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1978, 589-605. Gioncu V. (2000): Framed structures. Ductility and seismic response. General Report. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 55, 125–154. Gioncu V. and Mazzolani F.M. (2002): Ductility of seismic resistant steel Structures. Spon Press, London, 1-40. Gupta A., Krawinkler H. (2000): Estimation of seismic drift demands for frame structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 29, 1287-1305. Housner G.M. et al (1997): Structural control: past, present and future. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 123, No. 9, 897-971. Iwan W.D. (1995): Near-field considerations in specification of seismic design motion of structures. In 10th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering (Ed. G. Duma), Vienna, 28 August – 2 September 1994, Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 1, 257-267. Iwan W.D. (1997): Drift spectrum: measures of demand for earthquake ground motions. Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 123, No. 4, 397-404. Krawinkler H. (1995): New trends in seismic design methodology. In 10th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering (Ed. G. Duma), Vienna, 28 August – 2 September 1994, Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 1, 821-830. Krawinkler H. and Seneviratna G.D.P.K. (1998): Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Journal of Engineering Structures, Vol. 20, No. 4-6, 452-464. Newmark N.M. and Hall W.J. (1969): Seismic design criteria for nuclear reactor facilities. Proc. 4th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile, 2 (B-4), 37-50. Mele E. and De Luca A. (1995): State of the art report on base isolation and energy dissipation. In Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas, Stessa 94, (Eds. F.M. Mazzolani and V. Gioncu), Timisoara, 26 June – 1 July 1994, E&FN Spon , London, 631-658. prEN 1993-1 (2001): Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 1: General rules for buildings. CEN, European Committee for Standardization. PrEN 1998-1 (2002): EC8 Final Draft. Design of Structures for earthquake resistance. CEN, European Committee for Standardization, Draft No. 5. Plumier A. (1994): Behaviour of connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 38, 95–123. Popov E.P. (1992): Development of U.S. codes. Journal of Constructional Research, Vol. 29, 191-207.
Page 1 and 2: Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanic
Page 3 and 4: UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI TRENTO D
Page 6: Ai miei genitori
Page 10 and 11: INDEX 1 INTRODUCTION...............
Page 12 and 13: INDEX iii 4.10.3 Results of the PsD
Page 14 and 15: 1.1 Introduction 1 1 INTRODUCTION I
Page 16 and 17: 1. INTRODUCTION imposes precise con
Page 18 and 19: 1. INTRODUCTION joints whilst 2D mo
Page 20 and 21: 7 2 DUCTILITY AND SEISMIC RESPONSE
Page 22 and 23: 2. DUCTILITY AND SEISMIC RESPONSE O
Page 54 and 55: 3. SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF BOLTED END
Page 100 and 101:
3. SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF BOLTED END
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
4. SEISMIC RESPONSE OF PARTIAL-STRE
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
5. SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF RC COLUMNS
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
6. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262:
show all

Analysis and modelling of the seismic behaviour of high ... - Ingegneria

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?