See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245305384

Return Period of Recorded Ground Motion

Article  in  Journal of Structural Engineering · June 2006

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:6(833)

CITATIONS READS
0 673

1 author:

Praveen K. Malhotra
StrongMotions Inc.
89 PUBLICATIONS   1,733 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Performance-based seismic design of a liquid nitrogen tank in California. View project

Ground Motion Analysis and Interpretation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Praveen K. Malhotra on 04 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Return Period of Recorded Ground Motion
Praveen K. Malhotra, M.ASCE1

Abstract: Ground motions recorded during earthquakes are often used to assess the seismic performance of structures affected by those
ground motions. However, it is necessary to first establish the return period of the recorded ground motion, because structures are expected
to perform better for frequently occurring ground motions than for rare ground motions. A systematic approach is presented to establish
the return period of ground motion recorded at the base of the Templeton Community Hospital during the 2003 San Simeon California
Earthquake. A similar approach can be used for any other ground motion.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2006兲132:6共833兲
CE Database subject headings: Earthquakes; Ground motion; Probability; Building codes; Seismic effects; Building design; Seismic
design.

Introduction wood frame hospital in Templeton, Calif., during the 2003

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis 共PHSA兲 provides ground
motions for different rates of exceedance 共Cornell 1968; Reiter
1991; McGuire 2004兲. For a time-independent 共Poisson兲 process,
the inverse of the exceedance rate is the return period; the longer
the return period, the stronger the ground motion. Structures can
be designed to meet different performance objectives for different
return period ground motions.
After an earthquake, the success of a seismic design 共and its
implementation兲 can be measured by comparing the observed
performance against the expected performance 共e.g., Poland
2004兲. Since, the expected performance depends on the return
period, it becomes necessary to first establish the return period of
the ground motion experienced by the structure. Many critical
structures have on-site instrumentation for recording ground mo-
tions. In the event of design ground motion, certain inspection
procedures are launched 共e.g. NFPA 2001兲. Since the design
ground motion is usually expressed in terms of the return period,
it is helpful to establish the return period of the recorded ground
motion.
Ground motions are characterized by their amplitude, fre-
quency content, and duration. All these characteristics should be
considered in establishing the return period of the recorded
ground motion. This is illustrated here with an example.
Recorded Ground Motion
San Simeon Earthquake of magnitude 6.5M w. The hospital is
14 ft 共4.3 m兲 high and was built in 1977. The instruments were
installed and maintained by the California Strong Motion In-
strumentation Program 共CSMIP兲 of the California Geological
Survey 共CGS兲. The processed records were downloaded from the
COSMOS 共1999–2005兲 webpage 共CISN 2004兲. According to
Sydnor 共personal communication 2005兲, the hospital is underlain
by Monterey Shale at shallow depth 共1 – 3 m兲, so that the site is
properly classified as National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Pro-
gram 共NEHRP兲 Site Class C 共BSSC 1998a兲. There were no free-
field instruments at the site. However, since the hospital is a light
wood structure, the base motion is not likely to be affected by the
inertial soil-structure interaction. There may have been some fil-
tering of the high frequencies by the foundation of the structure
due to kinematic interaction 共Veletsos and Prasad 1989兲, but we
assume that the base motion is the same as the free-field motion.
The ground motion histories shown in Fig. 1共a兲 are for the
90° 共east兲 direction and those shown in Fig. 1共b兲 are for the
360° 共north兲 direction. The values of peak ground acceleration
共PGA兲, peak ground velocity 共PGV兲, and peak ground displace-
ment 共PGD兲 are shown on these histories. Also shown are the
significant durations computed from the acceleration histories.
Significant duration Ds is the time difference between the arrivals
of 5 and 95% of the area under the square of the acceleration
history 共Trifunac and Brady 1975兲. Ds = 10 s in both east and
north directions.

Fig. 1 shows the acceleration, velocity and displacement histories
of horizontal ground motions recorded at the base of a one-story
1
Senior Research Specialist, FM Global, 1151 Boston-Providence
Tpk., Norwood, MA 02062-9102. E-mail: praveen.malhotra@
fmglobal.com
Note. Associate Editor: Sanj Malushte. Discussion open until
November 1, 2006. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. To extend the closing date by one month, a written request must
be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper
was submitted for review and possible publication on October 11, 2004;
approved on August 23, 2005. This paper is part of the Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 6, June 1, 2006. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-
9445/2006/6-833–839/$25.00.
Response Spectrum of Recorded Ground Motion
Fig. 2共a兲 shows the 5% damping pseudovelocity response spectra
of the two horizontal ground motions shown in Figs. 1共a and b兲.
Fig. 2共b兲 shows the geometric mean of the two horizontal ground
motion spectra. The large variations in the spectral amplitude with
the natural period are not significant because the natural period
of a structure is usually not known exactly and nonlinear response
of the structure during strong shaking continuously changes the
natural period of the structure. Therefore, the essential features of
an actual response spectrum are captured by a smooth spectrum
fitted through the actual spectrum 共Malhotra 2003兲. The smooth
spectrum is shown by solid lines in Fig. 2共b兲. The linear plots of

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2006 / 833

Fig. 1. Acceleration, velocity, and displacement histories of horizontal ground motion at base of Templeton Hospital during 2003 magnitude
6.5M w San Simeon California Earthquake

the actual and smooth acceleration response spectra are shown by
dashed and solid lines, respectively, in Fig. 3. From now on, we
will refer to the smooth geometric-mean spectrum as the spectrum
of the recorded ground motion. The spectral accelerations 共SA兲 at
0.2 and 1 s periods are: SA共0.2 s兲 = 1.13g, and SA共1 s兲 = 0.33g
共Fig. 3兲.
Return Period of Recorded Spectral Accelerations
We now estimate the return period of the recorded spectral ac-
celerations from the hazard curves generated by the PSHA of
the site. The hazard curves are plots of spectral acceleration
versus return period. The CGS and the United States Geological
Survey 共USGS兲 have generated hazard curves for sites through-
out the country assuming firm rock 共average shear wave velocity
VS = 760 m / s in top 30 m兲 site conditions 共Petersen et al. 1996
and Frankel et al. 1996兲. Fig. 4 shows the SA共0.2 s兲 and SA共1 s兲
hazard curves for the Templeton Hospital site 共35.556°N,
120.719°W兲 obtained from Frankel and Leyendecker 共2001兲.
Fig. 5 shows the hazard curves adjusted for Site Class C using the
NEHRP soil amplification factors 共BSSC 1998a兲.
Next, we read the return periods of the recorded spectral ac-

Fig. 2. Pseudovelocity response spectra for 5% damping: 共a兲 spectra of horizontal motions recorded in 90° 共east兲 and 360° 共north兲 directions, and
共b兲 geometric mean of two horizontal ground motion spectra 共smooth spectrum shown by solid lines兲

834 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2006


Fig. 3. 5% damping acceleration response spectrum of horizontal
motion. Actual geometric-mean spectrum is shown by dashed-lines
and smooth spectrum is shown by solid lines.
celerations from the hazard curves. SA共0.2 s兲 = 1.13g has a return
period of 1962 years, and SA共1 s兲 = 0.33g has a return period of
445 years 共Fig. 5兲.
Duration Adjustment
Return period of 1962 years for SA共0.2 s兲 does not imply that a
0.2 s period structure at the Templeton Hospital site would have
experienced 1962-year return period load during the San Simeon
Earthquake. By definition, SA共0.2 s兲 provides the peak load ex-
perienced by a 0.2 s period structure. In addition to the peak, the
structure experiences several smaller load cycles, each of which
can cause some damage to the structure. Therefore, the peak, in
itself, does not provide a complete definition of the seismic load
experienced by the structure. The number of load cycles is also
important 共e.g., Malhotra 2002兲. Assuming that duration is an
indirect measure of the number of load cycles, we compare the
duration of the Templeton Hospital base motion with the duration
associated with a 1962-year return period SA共0.2 s兲 at the site.
Seismic deaggregation 共e.g., McGuire 1995; Cramer and
Petersen 1996; Harmsen and Frankel 2001兲 provides the magni-
tude and distance of earthquakes associated with spectral accel-
erations at different return periods. Seismic deaggergation for
sites in the Unites States can be performed at the USGS 共2005兲
Fig. 4. SA共0.2 s兲 and SA共1 s兲 hazard curves for Templeton Hospital
site, assuming firm rock soil condition
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2006 / 835
Fig. 5. SA共0.2 s兲 and SA共1 s兲 hazard curves for Templeton Hospital
site assuming NEHRP site class C
webpage for these return periods: 72, 224, 475, 975, 2475, and
4975 years. For the Templeton Hospital site, we perform the de-
aggregation for SA共0.2 s兲 at 975- and 2475-year return periods.
We find that the dominant earthquake associated with both these
return periods is 7.1M w at 5 km on the Rinconada Fault. There-
fore, the dominant earthquake for 1962-year SA共0.2 s兲 is 7.1M w
at 5 km. The median duration for this earthquake ground motion,
estimated from the Abrahamson and Silva 共1996兲 prediction rela-
tionship, is Ds = 17 s.
Similarly, the dominant earthquake for 445-year return period
SA共1 s兲 is 7.8M w at 43 km on the San Andreas Fault. The median
duration for this earthquake ground motion, from Abrahamson
and Silva 共1996兲 relationship, is Ds = 35 s.
The durations for both dominant earthquake ground mo-
tions are longer than the 10 s duration of the recorded ground
motion 关Figs. 1共a and b兲兴. This implies that the recorded ground
motion was not as intense 共damaging兲 as the spectral accelera-
tions would suggest. We will adjust the spectral accelerations of
recorded ground motion to account for its shorter duration. We
start by assuming that the shaking intensity is directly propor-
tional to the duration, and to the square of the amplitude. This
assumption is consistent with the definition of the Arias intensity
共AI兲 共Arias 1970兲
冕
⬁
␲
AI = · 关a共t兲兴2 · dt 共1兲
2g 0
where a共t兲 = acceleration at time t, and g = acceleration due to
gravity.
The SA共0.2 s兲 for the recorded ground motion is 1.13g
共Fig. 3兲. The measured duration is 10 s, but the duration for
the dominant earthquake ground motion is 17 s. We multiply
SA共0.2 s兲 by 冑10/ 17= 0.77 to account for shorter duration of the
recorded ground motion. This gives the duration-adjusted short-
period spectral acceleration of SA共0.2 s兲 = 1.13⫻ 0.77= 0.87g.
Similarly, the duration-adjusted SA共1 s兲 = 0.33⫻ 冑10/ 35= 0.18g.
We apply the SA共0.2 s兲 adjustment factor to the entire short-
period 共acceleration-sensitive兲 region of the spectrum and
SA共1 s兲 adjustment factor to the intermediate period 共velocity-
sensitive兲 region of the spectrum. The duration-adjusted smooth
spectrum of the Templeton Hospital ground motion is shown by
dashed lines in Fig. 6.
From the SA共0.2 s兲 hazard curve shown in Fig. 5, the return
period of the duration-adjusted SA共0.2 s兲 is 937-years. The
SA共1 s兲 for the 937-year return period is 0.43g. The return period
Fig. 6. Duration-adjusted response spectrum of Templeton Hospital
ground motion compared with 937- and 103-year spectra for site
of duration-adjusted SA共1 s兲 is 103-years. The SA共0.2 s兲 for the
103-year return period is 0.38g. Building code-type smooth re-
sponse spectra were constructed from the SA共0.2 s兲 and SA共1 s兲
values, as follows.
First, the control period TS is obtained
SA共1 s兲
TS = 1 s · 共2兲
SA共0.2 s兲
Next, the spectral accelerations in various period ranges are
computed from
冦
0.4 · SA共0.2 s兲 + 3SA共0.2 s兲 · T/TS for T ⬍ 0.2TS
SA共T兲 = SA共0.2 s兲 for 0.2TS ⬍ T ⬍ TS
SA共1 s兲 · 1 s/T for T ⬎ TS
共3兲
A response spectrum obtained by the above procedure is not
strictly a uniform hazard spectrum, because spectral accelerations
at natural periods other than 0.2 and 1 s may have different return
periods. However, in this study we assume that the spectral ac-
celerations at all natural periods have the same return period as
SA共0.2 s兲 and SA共1 s兲.
Fig. 6 shows the 937- and 103-year return period response
spectra for the site constructed by using the above procedure.
Note that the duration-adjusted spectral accelerations up to 0.21 s
period have a return period of 937-years. Duration-adjusted spec-
tral accelerations between the 0.46 and 1.9 s period have a return
period of 103-years. From the 0.21 to 0.46 s period, the return
period varies from 937- to 103-years. To obtain the return period
of recorded spectral acceleration from the 0.21 to 0.46 s period,
we construct the site spectra for return periods ranging from 103-
to 937-years, and determine the natural periods where these spec-
tra intersect the duration-adjusted smooth spectrum of the re-
corded ground motion. In Fig. 7, the 500-year return period spec-
trum intersects the smooth spectrum at 0.27 s, therefore,
SA共0.27 s兲 has a return period of 500-years. Fig. 8 shows the
variation of return period with the natural period of the structure.
Return Period of Seismic Load
From Fig. 8, we can estimate the return period of the load expe-
rienced by the Templeton Hospital building, if we can first esti-
mate the effective period of the building. We will use the capacity
836 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2006
Fig. 7. Duration-adjusted spectrum of recorded motion and 500-year
return period spectrum for site. 0.27 s period spectra acceleration of
recorded motion has return period of 500-years
spectrum method 共ATC 1996兲 to estimate the effective period of
the building. For this, we need the capacity curve for the building
and demand spectrum of the recorded motion.
The capacity 共pushover兲 curve is a plot of building deforma-
tion under an increasing horizontal force, normalized by the first
modal mass of the building. An “accurate” capacity curve can
be constructed by reviewing the structural design of the building.
For the purpose of this study, we assume the following parameters
to construct the capacity curve: 共1兲 the elastic period of the build-
ing is 0.2 s; 共2兲 the yield capacity of the building is 0.4W, where
W = first modal weight of the building; 共3兲 the ultimate capacity of
the building is 1.2W; and 共4兲 the ultimate capacity is mobilized at
29 cm deformation. Parameters 2–4 are consistent with the
HAZUS 共FEMA 1999兲 guidelines 共Kircher et al. 1997兲. The elas-
tic period is based on the analysis of strong-motion data by Huang
and Tokas 共2004兲. The capacity curve constructed from these pa-
rameters is shown in Fig. 9.
The demand spectrum is obtained by plotting the spectral ac-
celeration SA against the spectral deformation 共SD兲. SA and SD
are related to each other as follows 共Newmark and Hall 1982兲:
冉 冊
2
T
SD = SA ⫻ 共4兲
2␲
Fig. 8. Return periods of duration-adjusted recorded spectral
accelerations 共Templeton Hospital base motion兲 for various natural
periods

Fig. 9. Assumed capacity curve for Templeton Hospital building
We also assume that the structural damping during strong
shaking was 10% of critical. This was based on cyclic tests on
wood frame shear walls by Shenton et al. 共1998兲. Their results
show that the equivalent viscous damping in wood frame shear
walls ranges from 10 to 15% of critical, but it decreases under
cyclic loading. We reduce the duration-adjusted spectral accelera-
tions 共and deformation兲 by 20% 关in accordance with Newmark
and Hall 共1982兲 and Malhotra 共2006兲 amplification factors兴 to
account for damping increase from 5 to 10% of critical. The 10%
damping spectrum is superimposed on the capacity curve in Fig.
10. The intersection of capacity curve and demand spectrum pro-
vides the effective period of the building to be 0.3 s and peak
deformation to be 1 cm. From Fig. 8, we read the return period of
the seismic load to be 353 years.
From strong-motion records, Huang and Tokas 共2004兲 esti-
mated the period of the Templeton Hospital building to be 0.2 s.
However, this is the “average” period, while the period estimated
from the capacity spectrum method is the instantaneous period at
Fig. 10. Estimating effective period and deformation of Templeton
Hospital building from pushover analysis
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2006 / 837
Fig. 11. Duration-adjusted recorded base motion spectrum compared
with MCE 共maximum considered earthquake兲 and 2/3 MCE spectra
peak response. For the Templeton Hospital building, the average
period is considered to be close to the linear elastic period due to
small nonlinear response 共Fig. 10兲. Huang and Tokas 共2004兲 esti-
mated the peak deformation of 1 cm. This is same as the defor-
mation estimated from the capacity spectrum method. The excel-
lent agreement between the measured and the estimated
deformations is a coincidence due to the approximations made in
the analysis.
Comparison with 2003 IBC Load
The maximum considered earthquake 共MCE兲 ground motions in
the 2003 IBC 共ICC 2003兲 are based on the 1996 USGS/CGS
analysis. These ground motions have a return period of 2475
years throughout the country except where a “deterministic limit”
is applied to the probabilistic values 共Leyendecker et al. 2000 and
Malhotra 2005兲. Hospitals are expected to meet life safety perfor-
mance for MCE ground motions and immediate occupancy per-
formance for 2/3 MCE ground motions 共BSSC 1998b兲.
For the Templeton Hospital site 共35. 556ⴰN, 120. 719ⴰW兲, the
short 共0.2 s兲 period and 1 s period MCE spectral accelerations,
from 2003 IBC 共ICC 2003兲, assuming firm rock site conditions,
are
SS = 1.263g 共5兲
S1 = 0.546g 共6兲
For Site Class C, the short-period and 1 s period spectral ampli-
fication factors are 共ICC 2003兲
Fa = 1 共7兲
Fv = 1.3 共8兲
The MCE spectral accelerations for the site are
S MS = 1.263 ⫻ 1 = 1.263g 共9兲
S M1 = 0.546 ⫻ 1.3 = 0.71g 共10兲
The control period TS is
S M1
TS = 1 s · = 0.562 s 共11兲
S MS

Fig. 12. Response of Templeton Hospital building under recorded,
2/3 MCE 共maximum considered earthquake兲, and MCE ground
motions
The MCE response spectrum for the Templeton Hospital site is
constructed by substituting S MS and S M1 in place of SA共0.2 s兲 and
SA共1 s兲 in Eq. 共3兲. Fig. 11 compares the MCE spectrum with the
duration-adjusted smooth response spectrum of the recorded
ground motion. The short-period spectral acceleration of the MCE
spectrum is 46% higher than the duration-adjusted short period
spectral acceleration of the recorded ground motion spectrum.
The 1 s period spectral acceleration of the MCE spectrum is
300% higher than the duration-adjusted 1 s period spectral accel-
eration of the recorded ground motion spectrum. The 2/3 MCE
spectrum is shown by dashed lines in Fig. 11. Next, we compare
the responses of the building under the MCE and 2/3 MCE
ground motions with that under the San Simeon Earthquake
ground motion.
As before, we assume the damping in the structure is 10% of
critical. We reduce S MS and S M1 by 20% to obtain the correspond-
ing values for 10% damping. Next we obtain SA from Eq. 共3兲 and
SD from Eq. 共4兲. We superimpose the demand spectrum 共plot
between SD and SA兲 of the MCE ground motion on the plot
shown in Fig. 10. This gives us the plot shown in Fig. 12. We
find that under the MCE ground motion, the building would ex-
perience 8.8 cm of deformation, whereas under the recorded
ground motion, the deformation was only 1 cm. Under the 2/3
MCE ground motion, the deformation experienced by the build-
ing would be 3.5 cm. Therefore, the building deformation under
the 2/3 MCE and MCE ground motions would be about 3.5 and
8.8 times that under the San Simeon Earthquake ground motion.
Conclusions
1. The ground motions produced by earthquakes have calcu-
lable return periods.
2. An earthquake produces ground motions of different re-
turn periods at different sites.
3. It can be misleading to estimate the return period of the
838 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2006
ground motion from peak ground acceleration 共or short-
period spectral acceleration兲 alone. In general, short-,
intermediate-, and long-period spectral accelerations have
different return periods.
4. Since duration plays an important role in the damage po-
tential of a ground motion, it must be considered in esti-
mating the return period of the ground motion. The
method proposed in this paper can be used to consider the
effect of duration.
5. The Templeton Hospital ground motion from the 2003
San Simeon, Calif. Earthquake has the duration-adjusted
short-period 共0.2 s兲 spectral acceleration of the 937-year
return period, and duration-adjusted 1 s period spectral
acceleration of the 103-year return period. The return pe-
riod of the load experienced by the Templeton Hospital
building is 353 years.
6. The deformation demands on the Templeton Hospital
building under the 2/3 MCE and MCE ground motions
are estimated to be 3.5 and 8.8 times that under the San
Simeon Earthquake ground motion.
Acknowledgments
Three anonymous reviewers of the original manuscript provided a
thorough review and several helpful suggestions. Robin McGuire,
Bob Shdnor, Tom Hale and Rakesh Goel provided additional
feedback.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Ds ⫽ significant duration;
M w ⫽ moment magnitude of earthquake;
SA ⫽ spectral acceleration;
SD ⫽ spectral deformation;
T ⫽ natural period of building; and
VS ⫽ average shear wave velocity in top 30 m of site.
References
Abrahamson, N. A., and Silva, W. J. 共1996兲. “Empirical ground motion
models.” Rep. to Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, N.Y.
Applied Technology Council 共ATC兲. 共1996兲. “Seismic evaluation and ret-
rofit of concrete buildings.” Rep. No. ATC-40, Applied Technology
Council, Redwood City, Calif.
Arias, A. 共1970兲. “A measure of earthquake intensity.” Seismic design for
nuclear power plants, R. J. Hansen, ed., MIT Press, Cambridge,
Mass., 438–483.
Building Seismic Safety Council 共BSSC兲. 共1998a兲. “1997 edition NEHRP
recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings
and other structures.” FEMA 302, Part 1 共Provisions兲, Developed for
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
Building Seismic Safety Council 共BSSC兲. 共1998b兲. “1997 edition
NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new
buildings and other structures.” FEMA 303, Part 2 共Commentary兲,
Developed for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Wash-
ington, D.C.
California Integrated Seismic Network 共CISN兲. 共2004兲. “Performance
of the CISN during the 2003 San Simeon Earthquake.” 具http://
www.cisn.org/docs典 共Apr. 3, 2005兲.
Consortium of Organizations for Strong-Motion Observation Systems
共COSMOS兲. 共1999–2005兲. “COSMOS virtual data center.” 具http://
db.cosmos-eq.org/典 共January 6, 2004兲.
Cornell, C. A. 共1968兲. “Engineering seismic risk analysis.” Bull. Seismol.
Soc. Am., 58共1兲, 1583–1606.
Cramer, C. H., and Petersen, M. D. 共1996兲. “Predominant seismic source
distance and magnitude maps for Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura
Counties, California.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 86共5兲, 1645–1649.
FEMA. 共1999兲. HAZUS: FEMA’s tool for estimating potential losses
from natural disasters, users manual, Federal Emergency Manage-
ment Agency, Washington, D.C.
Frankel, A. D., and Leyendecker, E. V. 共2001兲. Seismic hazard curves and
uniform hazard response spectra for the United States, Version 3.10,
共CD-ROM兲, USGS, Denver.
Frankel, A., Mueller, C., Barnhard, T., Perkins, D., Leyendecker, E. V.,
Dickman, N., Hanson, S., and Hopper, M. 共1996兲. “National Seismic
Hazard Maps, June 1996 Documentation.” Open File Rep. No. 96-
532, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver.
Harmsen, S., and Frankel, A. 共2001兲. “Geographic deaggregation of seis-
mic hazard in the United States.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 91共1兲,
13–26.
Huang, M. J., and Tokas, C. 共2004兲. “Recorded response and observed
performance of a wood-frame hospital building during the 2003 San
Simeon Earthquake.” Proc. SMIP04 Seminar, California Strong Mo-
tion Instrumentation Program, California Geological Survey, Sacra-
mento, Calif.
International Code Council 共ICC兲. 共2003兲. International Building Code
(IBC) 2003, International Code Council, Falls Church, Va.
Kircher, C. A., Nassar, A. A., Kustu, O., and Holmes, W. T. 共1997兲.
“Development of building damage functions for earthquake loss esti-
mation.” Earthquake Spectra, 13共4兲, 663–681.
Leyendecker, E. V., Hunt, R. J., Frankel, A. D., and Rukstales, K. S.
共2000兲. “Development of maximum considered earthquake ground
motion maps.” Earthquake Spectra, 16共1兲, 557–578.
Malhotra, P. K. 共2002兲. “Cyclic-demand spectrum.” Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dyn., 31共7兲, 1441–1457.
Malhotra, P. K. 共2003兲. “Strong-motion records for site-specific analysis.”
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2006 / 839
View publication stats
Earthquake Spectra, 19共3兲, 557–578.
Malhotra, P. K. 共2005兲. “Return period of design ground motions.” Seis-
mol. Res. Lett., 76共6兲, 693–699.
Malhotra, P. K. 共2006兲. “Smooth spectra of horizontal and vertical mo-
tions.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 96共3兲, .
McGuire, R. K. 共1995兲. “Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and de-
sign earthquakes: closing the loop.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 85共5兲,
1275–1284.
McGuire, R. K. 共2004兲. Seismic hazard and risk analysis, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, Calif.
National Fire Protection Association 共NFPA兲. 共2001兲. “Standard for the
production, storage, and handling of liquefied natural gas 共LNG兲.”
NFPA 59A National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Mass.
Newmark, N. M., and Hall, W. J. 共1982兲. Earthquake spectra and design.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, Calif.
Petersen, M., Bryant, W., Cramer, C., Cao, T., Reichle, M., Frankel, A.,
Lienkaemper, J., McCrory, P., and Schwartz, D. 共1996兲. “Probabilistic
seismic hazard assessment for the state of California.” Open-File Rep.
No. 96-08, California Geological Survey, Calif.
Poland, C. D. 共2004兲. “Making performance-based engineering useful.”
Proc., 13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C.,
Canada, Paper No. 5006.
Reiter, L. 共1991兲. Earthquake hazard analysis–Issues and insights, Co-
lumbia University Press, New York.
Shenton, H. W., III, Dinehart, D. W., and Elliott, T. E. 共1998兲. “Stiffness
and energy degradation of woodframe shear walls.” Can. J. Civ. Eng.,
25共3兲, 412–423.
Trifunac, M. D., and Brady, A. G. 共1975兲. “A study of the duration of
strong earthquake ground motion.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 65共3兲,
581–626.
United States Geological Survey 共USGS兲. 共2005兲. “Interactive deaggre-
gations 1996.” 具http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/eq/html/deaggint.html典 共Apr.
3, 2005兲.
Veletsos, A. S., and Prasad, A. M. 共1989兲. “Seismic interaction of
structures and soils: stochastic approach.” J. Struct. Eng., 115共4兲,
935–956.