Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1
his or her head at the same time. Design and analysis are parallel, interacting
Design vis-à-vis Analysis processes, not opposites. Thus the subheading above is labeled design “vis-à-
The design aspect of these elements is featured here, rather than their analysis. vis” analysis not design “versus” analysis.
Conversely, most of the educational experience of an engineering student relates Architecture and Engineering
to analysis, not design. For example, homework assignments and exam questions Some of the important decisions concerning the seismic design of a building, the
frequently probe a student’s knowledge of how to analyze a truss or frame ele- structural design that eventually appears on the structural or “S” sheets in the
ment, but less often deal with how to select the element and proceed through construction drawing set, are made by the architect. Typically, the architect has a
design steps. Sometimes the terms “seismic analysis” and “seismic design” are prime contract with the owner. The structural engineer and other consultants,
loosely used interchangeably. To be precise, however, there can be no seismic such as mechanical or electrical engineers, landscape architects, and acoustical
analysis until some seismic design has already occurred. At a minimum, a pre- experts, are subcontractors to the architect. Decisions as to the external shape of
liminary or schematic seismic design must be produced. Perhaps this preliminary the building and even the precise location of internal structural elements, and
seismic design is a hand-drawn sketch showing approximate dimensions, the overall determination of some of the structural materials, are typically made by the archi-
configuration of the structure, and notes on what the materials are. Perhaps it is a tect in his or her preliminary architectural design, often with only a few consulta-
stick diagram of a frame, with initial assumptions as to some typical member tions with the structural engineer.
sizes, allowing for a quick computer analysis. In many cases with buildings, a
relatively complete architectural preliminary design is the starting point. A struc-
tural designer typically proceeds through a number of iterations of design and
analysis—first proposing a solution and then testing that solution against code
provisions and engineering principles—to evolve a preliminary seismic design
concept into a finished design ready to be built. Good structural designers acquire
the knack or intuitive ability to efficiently apply analytical tools in resolving the
key design decisions that must be made first, which will then allow for an efficient
design process to refine other design decisions.
Many of us have had the experience as children of taking a clock apart to literally
“see what makes it tick.” Very few of us have any childhood memories of being
able to put the clock back together again. In learning a foreign language, it is Floor plan of Banco Central, 1972 Nicaragua Earthquake. Note the eccentric location of rein-
feasible for an intermediate-level student to learn how to diagram a complex sen- forced concrete walls. “Had a strong north-south component of shaking been present, consider-
ably more damage would have occurred at the east end due to torsion induced by the elevator
tence in detail, taking it apart to label each past perfect tense, each participial cores.” (Wyllie, 1973, p.578)
phrase, and so on. However, it takes true mastery of the language to start with a
blank piece of paper and produce a complex, well-written sentence. Designing is That fait accompli is often the starting point for the engineer’s design work. This
the process of writing down a statement, and analysis is the process of critiquing is not to say that this common practice is efficient or desirable. “If we have a poor
that work to try to find errors in it or verify its accuracy. In that process of first configuration to start with, all the engineer can do is to provide a band-aid—
hypothesizing and then testing, it is often true that “it is easier to malign than improve a basically poor solution as best he can. Conversely, if we start off with a
design.” Lateral force calculations are essential, but they follow the initial deci- good configuration and a reasonable framing scheme, even a poor engineer can’t
sions as to the structure’s layout. “It has long been acknowledged that the seismic harm its ultimate performance too much. This last statement is only slightly exag-
resistance system of a structure is just as important, if not more important, than gerated. Much of the problem would be solved if all structures were of regular
the actual lateral design forces.” (Holmes, 1976, p.827) Though analytical tools shape, but economics of lot sizes and arrangements, various planning require-
become more sophisticated every year, the basic design task of proposing a struc- ments for efficient use of space, and aesthetically pleasing proportions require the
tural system and selecting materials and connections remains as demanding a task structural engineer to provide for safe constructions of various shapes.”
as ever. The skillful structural designer keeps both modes of thought working in (Degenkolb, 1977)
2
Choices for the Lateral-force-resisting Elements of Structural Systems ferentiated from the case that has only one of these. For purposes of tabulating
There is an ever-increasing use of response modification techniques that change design coefficients, such as the R or response modification factor, the NEHRP
the seismic demand on the lateral-force-resisting elements, but it is a rare struc- Provisions (BSSC, 2001, chapter 5) tabulates 67 combinations. In the Uniform
ture that is not comprised of elements featured here. Such techniques are aimed at Building Code, K factors were assigned for many years to structures based prima-
changing the forces in the structure due to ground motion (e.g. seismic isolation) rily on the basis of a few kinds of vertical elements resisting lateral forces, for
or at changing the displacement within the structure due to the ground motion example assigning a coefficient of 1.33 to shear wall/bearing wall systems and
(e.g. damping devices). half that value for “special” (meeting special seismic requirements) moment-re-
sisting frames. (SEAOC, 1999, Appendix C)
The taxonomy of the vertical elements in a seismically designed structure is quite
concise. The choices are limited to the following, with very few exceptions: braced The vertical elements need a “lid on the box,” a horizontal element to tie them
frames (vertically-oriented truss elements), moment-resistant frames (formerly together and distribute forces in plan, and the diaphragm fills this role. While
called rigid frames), and shear walls. Shear walls are so named because of the
loading they resist—they counteract the tendency of one story of a structure to
move sideways, or shear, vis-à-vis another—not because of their internal forces Shear wall 1. Wood
or stresses, which in some cases are dominated by flexure, not shear. 2. Reinforced Concrete
3. Reinforced Masonry
The materials of which these elements can be made, again with very few excep- 4. Steel
tions, are limited to:
Steel (we include here other metals, such as aluminum)
Reinforced masonry
Reinforced concrete Braced frame 5. Steel
Wood 6. Ecentrically
Braced Frame
Some of these combinations of elements and materials are rare and are not treated 7. Wood
here with their own page of description. Braced frames can be made of reinforced (and other variants)
concrete, and occasionally such bracing in a bridge tower is seen, but most braced
frames have been made of steel or wood. Masonry forming a braced frame would
be an extremely unusual case. Moment-resistant frames, while theoretically pos- Moment frame 8. Reinforced Concrete
sible in any material, can be excluded here with regard to masonry and wood. 9. Steel
Because the eccentrically braced frame is a new breed that should be distinguished
from other braced frames, it is treated here as its own type of element in its own
essay. The vertical cantilever or inverted pendulum, such as the ubiquitous ex-
ample of a street light, or the hybrid case of the cable-plus-cantilever structure of
the telephone pole, are not treated here, though they are types of elements com-
monly encountered in bridge design. Other examples of types of elements that Diaphragms 10. Reinforced Concrete
resist earthquake loads that are outside the scope here include shells, arches, and 11. Wood
suspension bridges.
Other taxonomies or classification systems are possible, and seismic codes usu-
ally divide up these vertical elements into more specific categories, so that design
provisions for a shear wall or moment-resisting frame with special ductile detail- The basic choices for lateral-force-resisting elements.
illustration source: Arnold and Reitherman, 1982, p. 37
ing is differentiated from one that has lesser detailing requirements, or the struc-
tural system that includes moment-resisting frames as well as shear walls is dif-
3
there are historic buildings, especially in Europe, that have horizontally spanning masonry that serves as a diaphragm, masonry diaphragms may be neglected here in
the context of modern seismic design. Steel diaphragms in the form of trusswork are sometimes found in buildings, but this is more often restricted to industrial
structures or bridges, and that combination of material and type of element is also excluded here. Wood and concrete diaphragms make up the vast majority of
diaphragms encountered in seismic design. (Metal deck is somewhat common on roofs, but is not treated here).
The basic choices are very limited, though there is a vast number of ways this “kit of parts” can be used to assemble diverse structures. It is no surprise that earthquake
insurance rating schemes (described by Steinbrugge, 1982), or loss estimation methods (e.g., HAZUS, NIBS, 1999) are based on roughly ten basic structural system/
material combinations, with the addition of subclasses for ranges of number of stories. For most purposes, the matrix of elements and materials reduces our combi-
nations to those listed on the prior page, each of which is featured for one of the twelve month pages.
The astute reader will have noted that the above list sums to eleven. Has the December page of this calendar been left blank?
No, there is a twelfth topic covered here, and it appears as an obvious addition when we realize that there are actually five “structural” materials, not just wood, steel,
concrete, and masonry. The fifth is the very ground on which the structure is founded. Increasingly, the fields of geotechnical engineering, foundation design, and the
earth sciences, employ sophisticated quantitative techniques that parallel the methods used in structural engineering, and in any seismic design problem, the “founda-
tion for the foundation” must be considered along with the manmade materials that constitute the structure above. While the earth in which the foundation is
embedded is generally taken as a given and not “designed,” even that assumption is not always true, now that large-scale soil remediation techniques can be employed.
And a structural designer’s image of his or her structure cannot stop at the base and leave a blank spot on the conceptual sketch where the ground begins. Decisions
concerning framing plans and other aspects of the structure determine gravity and seismic loads on the foundation, which can be economically resisted only if soil
properties are taken into account in the early design states. The input motion to the structure from an earthquake is modified by local soil conditions and is an essential
ingredient that must be considered from the beginning. Soil-structure interaction is a major field in its own right that is devoted to the way the earthquake’s vibrations
through the ground are modified by the fact that from the earthquake’s point of view, there is a significant “outcropping,” i.e., a building, tunnel, bridge, or other
structure, built on or into the earth.
The state of development of the rational analysis of the earth that supports a structure is maturing today in many ways parallel with the way the properties of the
structural elements are considered in seismic design. A few of these commonalities are: how the materials dynamically respond to the earthquake based on frequen-
cies and damping; the major distinction in inelastic behavior as compared to elastic behavior; estimation of how much displacement and deformation occurs as well
as the acceleration levels; how the varying amounts of knowledge about the material properties probabilistically affects the uncertainty of the resulting calculations;
consideration of the fact that the loading occurs over tens of seconds of rapidly changing movements during the earthquake, rather than in a static way, thus requiring
a consideration of the history of previous cycles of motion.
Non-seismic Factors in the Selection of Seismic-Force-Resisting Elements
Non-seismic considerations influence a structure’s seismic design in many ways. The following tabulation provides one simple, generalized way of looking at this
relationship. Space allows only one or two examples of seismic design implications with an example of a related non-seismic design factor. In some cases, the non-
seismic influence is neutral or favorable, but in other cases, it introduces a major seismic design problem. Typically, the non-seismic design factors are set first during
the design process, and then the seismic design adjusts itself to those determinants. Just as engineering students are often unaware of the primary design role of the
architect in contractual terms, it is often a surprise to them that seismic design, at least for most buildings, and to a considerable extent even for bridges and industrial
structures, occurs within constraints already set by non-seismic considerations. One of the toughest tasks in structural engineering is to design a building to resist
strong earthquakes, when the earthquake that will test the construction is very uncertain as to when and where it will occur, its motions are very random, and the
capacity of the building to inelastically respond is known much less reliably than in the case of resistance to most other loads. Yet this tough seismic design problem
is only rarely the top priority, because the owner and architect are also confronted with issues that are judged by them as more immediate: efficiency of the functional
spaces, internal and external aesthetics, and compliance with non-seismic code and planning requirements.
4
Seismic and Non-seismic Considerations for Selection of Type of Seismic Element and Material
Fire Protection Locations of structural materials and masses: These ramifications are not necessarily problematic from a
If Type I construction (the most fire resistant) is required, seismic design standpoint, but note that exposed steel or timber walls or floors may be eliminated as options,
reinforced masonry or reinforced concrete walls, or rein- and that buildings that have high fire protection levels are higher in mass than they would otherwise be. Fire
forced concrete or well-fire-protected steel columns, will be sprinkler water tanks are also significant concentrated masses in high-rise buildings.
required, and the diaphragm will be reinforced concrete.
Acoustics Shear wall locations: Introduction of localized areas of stiffness due to concrete or masonry walls in a
If sound transmission through walls and floors must be woodframe building can be advantageous or disadvantageous, depending on the wall’s location. Walls that
reduced to a very low level, then concrete floors and cause eccentricity of center of mass from center of rigidity lead to torsion. Concrete topping on wood floors
concrete or masonry walls are often used. increases their rigidity and mass.
Construction Cost Low structural engineering design budgets go along with low overall construction budgets, reducing the amount
Low construction budgets are a fact of life. of time that can be spent on design as well as minimizing or eliminating construction inspection by the designer.
Introducing a steel moment frame at strategic places in a woodframe building (e.g., garage openings, “soft front
walls” of retail buildings) may seem like a simple engineering feat, but may push the construction cost beyond
budget.
Appearance Unfavorable configurations are produced as well as opportunities: Pilotis (stilts) made popular by modern
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or as the late architect architecture can cause a soft story. If structural elements are featured architecturally (“structuralism”) then there
George Simonds once said, “form follows fashion.” is wider latitude and more creativity in the seismic design, though detailing becomes more expensive to make
members, and especially connections, aesthetically pleasing.
Energy Conservation, HVAC System, Selection of horizontal members, wall locations, materials: Large ducts may necessitate trusses in the sus-
Environmental Concerns pended ceiling space, rather than beams, though beams would more easily allow the development of a moment-
Materials differ in thermal mass and insulation. resistant frame. Introducing high mass into wood residences for “thermal flywheel” reasons also introduces
high stiffness where concrete or masonry walls are located.
Gravity Load Resistance Column or wall spacing is usually set by span limits for resisting gravity and to correspond to floor plan
With the exception of the eccentrically braced frame, all of requirements, and then seismic considerations are considered. The ability of steel frames in the decades prior to
the structural elements used in seismic design were first the 1994 Northridge Earthquake to achieve longer economical spans allowed fewer columns to be placed farther
developed to resist gravity loads or wind, and then in the apart and also increased beam depths. This trend with regard to columns and beams negatively impacted the
20th century “retrofitted” to perform seismic roles. ductility of steel moment-resisting frames.
5
Seismic Provisions in Codes and Standards
Numerous prescriptive design requirements for all the various elements discussed With regard to earthquakes, the case-by-case empirical approach is mismatched
here are provided in codes and standards for buildings, bridges, and other kinds of against a phenomenon that is so uncertain and hard to predict. First, the earth-
construction. No attempt has been made in these brief essays to cite the numerous quake shaking that was recorded in the last earthquake is not exactly the same as
relevant documents or summarize their provisions. Oftentimes university archi- what a given structure will experience in the future; secondly, the structure that
tecture and engineering instructors in structures classes that are design-oriented experienced an earthquake is not identical to the one that a structural engineer is
use code documents as basic texts to relate structural theory to structural practice. designing today. (Even if the “same” structure that was exposed to the last earth-
The commentary portions of the NEHRP Provisions (BSSC, 2001), SEAOC blue quake is to be exposed to an earthquake that could be made to be identical to the
book (SEAOC, 1997), FEMA’s Seismic Rehabilitation Guidelines (ATC, 1997), last one, the structure will likely be different in its characteristics because of that
and Uniform Building Code and related International Building Code seismic pro- very experience of the first earthquake). The “recipe” of complete structures is
visions (ICBO, various) can be treated as, in effect, textbooks that help to bridge composed of many ingredients--many elements, layouts, details, sites. The long-
between the analysis rules the codes mandate for checking designs, on the one term goal must be to evolve from an empirical basis to a sound theoretical founda-
hand, and the concepts and procedures used to produce designs on the other. It tion, being always open to new insights provided by practice, analysis, experi-
must be remembered, however, that a code should not be considered a complete mentation, and actual earthquakes.
manual or “cookbook” but rather a standardized set of minimum legal require- While far from a comprehensive historical review, a brief list of key seismic de-
ments that must be met in the process of conceptualizing and engineering a safe sign lessons provided by earthquakes is shown below. Because the essays that
and efficient structure. follow on the anatomy of the elements of a seismically designed structure are
limited to American practice so they can fit a concise format, it is important to
A Lesson Plan Provided By Earthquakes note in passing the major contributions of researchers and engineers in other coun-
As an aspect of the physical world becomes fully understood, science is able to tries who have learned from their own earthquakes.
explain and predict a given phenomenon, and verified theory supplants or comple-
ments reliance on empirical data. While the capability of engineering analysis today to predict structural and
geotechnical behavior in future earthquakes is remarkably advanced compared to
Merely by mapping the wells that supplied drinking water in central London and what it was only a few decades ago, there are other earthquakes that will inevita-
the locations of fatalities from an outbreak of cholera in 1854, Dr. John Snow was bly occur that will provide more empirical data with which the theoretical basis of
able to identify the source of a cholera outbreak. (Gilbert, 1958) Snow realized seismic design will be advanced. The seismic design lesson plan provided to
from the empirical data that for some reason, the water from one particular well engineers by actual earthquakes has yet to be completed.
was the source of the disease, and after he had that pump’s handle removed, the
outbreak was controlled. This empirical approach to graphing (mapping in this Robert Reitherman
case) the data, and looking for a statistical pattern, could identify the geographic
source but not the causal mechanism. Snow’s work was 25 years before Louis
Pasteur experimented with the cholera virus in chickens and developed a vitiated
strain that could provide an immunity for an inoculated organism, all based on Acknowledgements
Pasteur’s theory or understanding of the problem, which is the justly famous Germ While any errors or omissions in these essays are solely my responsibility, the
Theory of Disease. The applicability of that theory to other diseases, with several helpful review comments provided by the following are gratefully acknowledged:
common types of immunizations routinely saving millions of lives, was far be- Gregg Brandow, Kelly Cobeen, Bill Holmes, and Andrew Whittaker.
yond what was possible within the case-by-case empirical level of understanding.
6
The Instructiveness of Destructiveness
7
The familiar bridge or roof truss is loaded vertically by gravity and spans horizontally, while the braced frame is loaded primarily horizontally
by seismic inertia loads and in essence acts as a vertical cantilever. The basic unit of a truss and the source of its stability is the triangle, a
structural unit that resists structural loads via development of axial forces in its members. Pure truss action results if the forces in the members
are aligned with (concentric with) the centerlines of pinned joints. This distinguishes the concentric braced frame discussed here from the
eccentrically braced frame (discussed separately). The braced frame is a direct, economical, and elegant seismic solution -- virtually a full-
scale diagram of the forces flowing through it. Directness of the path taken by forces in the members is also a potential seismic disadvantage:
When the strain in a braced frame member exceeds its elastic limit, there is no place for the system to “let off steam” safely unless special
seismic, i.e. inelastic, design features are incorporated, or special devices employed. “Buckling of beams and columns cannot represent
acceptable means of dissipating seismic energy as such response would endanger the gravity load carrying capacity of the structure. Hence
inelastic action under earthquakes must only take place in the diagonal bracing members and adequate detailing must be provided to ensure
that the braces can go through the expected inelastic demand without premature fracture.”
(Tremblay, 2001)
A basic seismic design principle is that the structure should gradually deform as the seismic
Seismic Retrofit of the Bennett Building
load increases into the inelastic range, allowing it to dissipate energy safely rather than illustration source: GSBS Architects, Reaveley Engineers
suddenly breaking. The title of a recent textbook points out this importance: Ductile Design
of Steel Structures. (Bruneau, Uang, and Whittaker, 1997) The non-ductile braced frame behaviors that must be prevented include the following:
(1) The diagonal delivers too much force to the connection at the beam-column joint and the connection breaks; (2) The brace or other member
buckles in compression; (3) A tension-only (e.g. tie-rod) diagonal stretches inelastically, seemingly a benign deformation, but on the next
repetition of a cycle when it is again loaded in tension, there is slack in the system and the frame must resist a“slamming” effect, and the hysteresis
loop is pinched; and (4) If diagonals frame into columns (as in a K brace) or beams (as in a V or chevron brace), the force delivered by the brace
damages the column or beam. In addition, modern seismic codes encourage redundancy. At a given story, on each line of bracing, diagonal
braces should share the lateral load exerted in a given direction by having some resist in tension while others take compression.
The fact that the diagonal is dedicated to a seismic role makes it an ideal place for application of innovative devices such as fluid dampers. The
recent retrofit of the Bennett Federal Building in Salt Lake City illustrates another technique, which was pioneered in Japan in the 1980s: “The
"The senses of the forces [tension or compression] in the basic concept of the Unbonded Brace is the prevention of compression buckling of a central steel core by encasing it over its length in a steel
diagonals can be determined by first imagining them to be
removed and then ascertaining their role in preventing the
tube filled with concrete or mortar. A slip interface, or ‘unbonding’ layer, between the steel core and the surrounding concrete is provided to
probable type of truss deformation that would occur." - ensure that compression and tension loads are carried only by the steel core…. inhibiting local buckling of the core as it yields in compression.”
(Schodek, 1980, p. 126) (Brown, Aiken, and Iafarzadeh, 2001) The term used in an early paper by Watanabe et al., 1988 clearly describes the concept: “Brace Encased
photo source: Godden Collection, EERC-NISEE in Buckling-Restraining Concrete and Steel Tube.”
Steel braced frames are often used in low-rise buildings, which, combined with the high stiffness of the bracing, tends to put these structures at the low-period end of the response spectrum. This
in turn usually means higher response (e.g., greater spectral acceleration) than in the long-period range, and these accelerations affect the structure as well as the equipment and contents. The
positive aspect to a stiff, low-period structure, however, is that it tends to protect built-in nonstructural components such as partitions from drift-induced damage. Steel braced frames are very
frequently used as the vertical structural elements providing lateral force resistance for bridges, electrical transmission towers, elevated water tanks, and non-building industrial structures.
CUREE are intentionally designed to provide a prominent architectural effect, are common in new buildings, and
braced frames are frequently expressed on the exterior of seismically retrofitted structures as an inexpensive
2003
structural measure that also adds visual appeal.
CUREE structural system, with earthquakes specifically in mind, is an example of the continuing trend toward energy
dissipation devices and strategies. H. Fujimoto tested eccentrically braced K braces in 1972, and in its current form 2003
it can be dated to 1978 with the experimental work published by Egor Popov (1913 - 2001), Charles Roeder, and others.
CUREE is less than universally loved. But virtually everyone likes large timbers. Thus the wooden braced frames in
industrial buildings remodeled into shops, or in the restaurants or residences with dramatic interiors, have the
2003
unique advantage of showing off a structural material that is also aesthetically appreciated.
CUREE as Le Corbusier, Gropius, Wright, Nervi, and Maillart, produced innovative designs featuring reinforced
concrete moment-resisting frames. With the ductility possible today, this element is a frequent seismic design 2003
choice for both bridges and buildings.
CUREE of a building from permanent walls and opens up the exterior to light and views, while using a minimum
amount of a ductile material, and the steel moment-resisting frame is the structural element ideally suited to 2003
that role.
CUREE When properly constructed, its performance in past earthquakes has typically been reliable. Ongoing research
aims at improving the efficiency of this element by increasing its strength and drift control capability at a small 2003
additional construction cost.
CUREE repaired after the earthquake. As the earthquake shaking continues, the crack keeps working and damage to
this element increases, but within limits, while stability of the overal structure is maintained and drift control 2003
is provided for nonstructural elements.
CUREE chosen for its high quality; (2) it aesthetically complemented many different styles; and (3) the structures have
endured. Reinforced to carry out its seismic role, masonry can be used in high seismic regions to create beautiful 2003
and durable buildings which perform similarly to concrete shear wall buildings if detailed adequately.
CUREE concentrate massive amounts of earthquake resistance into compact spaces where other types of elements
would not be strong enough. Energy dissipation strategies can also be combined with steel shear walls to 2003
provide damping and energy dissipation with this type of element.
CUREE diaphragms--which are key to a complete seismic-load-resisting system. A concrete floor system offers some
seismic advantages, but its selection is usually predetermined by non-seismic factors such as fire resistance, 2003
control of footfall vibration, acoustic separation, and vertical load carrying ability.
Wood Diaphragms
Just as wood shear walls are the most numerous of the vertically-oriented seismic resistant elements, wood
diaphragms are the most common type of diaphragm in the United States. With careful and usually inexpensive
seismic detailing, wood diaphragms have performed very reliably in earthquakes in all-wood construction.
CUREE The vulnerability of inadequate connections of masonry or concrete walls to wood diaphragms in new
buildings has been largely remedied with current joist anchorage and other connection details. Fortunately, 2003
these measures are also relatively inexpensive to implement as retrofits for existing mixed construction.
CUREE analysis, observation, and experimentation, than the structure, but it is an integral element of the seismic load
path. Great strides have been made in the earth sciences and geotechnical engineering in recent years to apply 2003
sophisticated quantitative analytical and experimental techniques.
21
Nakashima, Masayoshi et al., 1994. “Energy Dissipation Behavior of Shear Panels Richter, Charles F., 1935. “An Instrumental Earthquake Magnitude Scale,” Bulletin
Made of Low Yield Steel,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. Vol. of the Seismological Society of America, January, 1935.
23, December, 1994, pp. 1299-1313. Roeder, Charles, 1998-a. “Correlation of Past Connection Experiments with
Newmark, Nathan, and Anestis Veletsos, 1960. “Effect of Inelastic Behavior on the Seismic Behavior,” in Proceedings of the NEHRP Conference and Workshop On
Response of Simple Systems to Earthquake Motions,” Proceedings of the Second Research on the Northridge, California Earthquake of January 17, 1994. Rich-
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. II, Tokyo and Kyoto, Japan. mond, CA: Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering.
Newmark, Nathan, 1965. “Effects of Earthquakes on Dams and Embankments,” Roeder, Charles, 1998-b. “Cracking and Ductility in Steel Moment Frames,” in
Geotechnique, Vol. 15, No. 2, p. 139-160. Proceedings of the NEHRP Conference and Workshop On Research on the
NIBS (National Institute of Building Sciences), 1999. HAZUS 99 Technical Northridge, California Earthquake of January 17, 1994. Richmond, CA: Consor-
Manual. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency. tium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering.
Noland, James, 1987. “A Review of the U.S. Coordinated Program for Masonry SAC Joint Venture, 2000. Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel
Building Research,” Proceedings of the Fourth North American Masonry Confer- Moment-Frame Buildings. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management
ence. Los Angeles, CA: University of California at Los Angeles. Agency. (FEMA 350)
Paulay, Thomas and Nigel Priestley, 1992. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Sano, Riki, 1915. Theory of Earthquake Resistant Building. Sano’s 1931 lecture
and Masonry. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. tour across the United States provides an English version of his studies: Scientific
and Technical Papers, Suyehiro Memorial Committee, Tokyo, 1934.
Penzien, Joseph, 2002. Personal communication. Professor Penzien studied
structural dynamics at MIT in 1959 on his first sabbatical, but the mathematical and SJSU (San Jose State University), 2002. Course Catalog. Civil Engineering 165,
dynamics courses and professors he sought out were in aeronautics and mechanical Earthquake Resistant Design, is an exception to this generalization concerning the
engineering. He and Professor Ray Clough began teaching a course in structural absence of undergraduate courses devoted to seismic design. See:
dynamics as a regular part of the civil engineering curriculum at the University of http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/mcmullin/courses/ce165/ce165.htm
California in the 1960s, with the text, Dynamics of Structures (New York: McGraw- Schodek, Daniel, 1980. Structures. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hill) first published in 1975. SEAOC (Structural Engineering Association of California), 1999. Recommended
Popov, Egor, 1980. “Eccentric Seismic Bracing of Steel Frames,” Proceedings of Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Seventh Edition. Sacramento, CA:
the Seventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. SEAOC. Because of its pale blue cover (dark blue in the case of the Seventh
Prion, Helmut, Ricardo Foschi, Frank Lam, and Carlos E. Ventura, 1999. Edition), this influential volume is sometimes referred to as “the blue book,” and it
“Research at the University of British Columbia,” in Frieder Seible, André has been periodically updated since its first publication in 1960.
Filiatrault, and Chia-Ming Uang, editors, Proceedings of the Invitational Workshop SEAONC (Structural Engineers Association of Northern California), 2001. Guide-
on Seismic Testing, Analysis and Design of Woodframe Construction. Richmond, lines for Seismic Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Tilt-Up Buildings and Other
CA: Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, 1999. Rigid Wall/Flexible Diaphragm Structures. San Francisco, CA: SEAONC; also
Reid, Harry Fielding, 1908. “The Mechanics of the Earthquake,” Vol. II, in The Whittier, CA: International Conference of Building Officials.
California Earthquake of April 18, 1906: Report of the State Earthquake Investiga- Seed, Harry Bolton, and K. L. Lee, 1966. “Liquefaction of Saturated Sands During
tion Commission. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution. Cyclic Loading,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE
Reitherman, 1984. “An Interview With Edward M. O’Connor: Retroactive 92, SM 6, pp. 105-134.
Earthquake Regulations In Long Beach,” Building Standards, International Confer- Seed, Harry Bolton, and I. M. Idriss, 1967. “Analysis of Soil Liquefaction: Niigata
ence Of Building Officials, September-October, 1984. Earthquake,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Divisions, ASCE 93,
Reitherman, Robert, 1998. “1926: The Suyehiro Vibration Analyzer,” in The 1998 SM 3, pp. 83-108.
CUREe Calendar: Historic Developments in the Evolution of Earthquake Engi- Seible, F., G.A. Hegemier, A. Igarashi, G.R. Kingsley, 1994. “Simulated Seismic
neering. Richmond, California: Consortium of Universities for Research in Load Test on Full-Scale Five-Story Reinforced Masonry Building,” Journal of
Earthquake Engineering. Structural Engineering, ASCE, March, 1994.
22
Somerville, Paul and Joanne Yoshimura, 1990. “The Influence of Critical Moho Wailes, C.D. and A. C. Horner, 1933. “Survey of Earthquake Damage at Long
Reflections on Strong Ground Motions Recorded in San Francisco and Oakland Beach, California,” City of Long Beach files, published in summary form in
During the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake,” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 17, Engineering News-Record, May 25, 1933 as “Earthquake Damage Analyzed By
No. 8, July 1990, pages 1203-1206. Long Beach Officials.”
Sritharan, S., M.J.N. Priestley, F. Seible, and A. Igarashi, 2000. “A Five-Story Ward, William E., 1883. “Béton in Combination with Iron as a Building Material,”
Precast Concrete Test Building for Seismic Conditions - An Overview,” Proceed- Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, IV (1883); quoted
ings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New in Condit, op. cit., p. 170.
Zealand, January 30 - February 4, 2000. Watanabe, A. Y. Hitomi, E. Saeki, A. Wada, and M. Fujimoto, 1988. “Properties of
Steinbrugge, Karl V., John H. Manning, and Henry J. Degenkolb, 1967. “Building Brace Encased in Buckling-Restraining Concrete and Steel Tube,” Proceedings of
Damage in Anchorage,” Fergus Wood, ed., The Prince William Sound, Alaska, the Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. IV, pp. 719-724,
Earthquake of 1964 and Aftershocks. Washington, DC: Coast and Geodetic Tokyo and Kyoto, Japan.
Survey. Wegener, Alfred, 1915. The Origin of Continents and Oceans. Original in German;
Steinbrugge, Karl V., 1970. “Earthquake Damage and Structural Performance in translated and revised several times.
the United States,” in Robert Wiegel, editor, Earthquake Engineering. Englewood Wyllie, Loring, 1973. “Performance of the Banco Central Building,” Managua,
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Nicaragua Earthquake of December 23, 1972. Oakland, California: Earthquake
Steinbrugge, Karl V., 1982. Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Tsunamis: An Anatomy Engineering Research Institute, vol. II.
of Hazards. New York: Skandia Group. Wood, Sharon, 1991. “Performance of Reinforced Concrete Buildings During the
Symans, Michael, K. Fridley, W. Cofer, and Y. Du, 2002. Innovative Systems. 1985 Chile Earthquake: Implications for the Design of Structural Walls,” Spectra,
Woodframe Project Report W-20. Richmond, CA: Consortium of Universities for vol., 7, no. 4, November, 1991.
Research in Earthquake Engineering. Wood, Sharon, 1998. “Research Overview: Concrete and Masonry Buildings,” in
Thorburn, L. J., G. L. Kulak, and C. J. Montgomery, 1983. Analysis of Steel Plate Proceedings of the NEHRP Conference and Workshop On Research on the
Shear Walls, Structural Engineering Report No. 107. Department of Civil Engi- Northridge, California Earthquake of January 17, 1994. Richmond, CA: Consor-
neering, University of Alberta. Summarized in Astaneh, 2001, op. cit. tium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering.
Timoshenko, Stephen, 1953. History of Strength of Materials: With a Brief Wood, Sharon, John Stanton, and Neil Hawkins, 1998. “Influence of Floor Dia-
Account of the History of Theory of Elasticity and Theory of Structures. New York: phragms on the Seismic Response of Precast Parking Garages,” in Proceedings of
McGraw-Hill. the NEHRP Conference and Workshop On Research on the Northridge, California
Tobriner, Stephen, 1984. “A History of Reinforced Masonry Construction De- Earthquake of January 17, 1994. Richmond, CA: Consortium of Universities for
signed To Resist Earthquakes,” Spectra Vol. 1, No. 1, Nov. 1984. Research in Earthquake Engineering.
Tremblay, Robert, 2001. “Seismic Behavior and Design of Concentrically Braced Yasamura, Motoi, 1990. “Seismic Behavior of Braced Frames in Timber Construc-
Steel Frames,” Engineering Journal, Third Quarter, 1001, pp. 148-166. tion,” Tsukuba, Japan: Building Research Institute.
Uyeda, Seiya, 1972, 1977. The New View of the Earth: Moving Continents and Yashinsky, Mark, 1998. “Performance of Bridge Seismic Retrofits During the
Moving Oceans. San Francisco, CA: 1977. (Translated and updated in 1977 from Northridge Earthquake,” in Proceedings of the NEHRP Conference and Workshop
the first edition in Japanese published in 1972). On Research on the Northridge, California Earthquake of January 17, 1994.
Richmond, CA: Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineer-
Verne, Jules, 1873. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Part I, Chapter 4. Published ing.
originally in French (Vingt Mille Lieues Sous Les Mers) and since translated and
republished many times. Youd, Les, and I. M. Idriss, editors, 1997. Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on
Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. NCEER 97-0022. Buffalo, New
York: Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER).
23