Seismic Reliability study of 2-D Steel Frame Structures using Non-

Linear Dynamic Analysis for Mumbai city

Project-I (CE47005) report submitted to

Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
in partial fulfillment for the award of the degree of
Bachelor of Technology (Hons.)
in
Civil Engineering

by

Thontepu Sri Kalyan

(10CE31010)

Under the supervision of

Prof. Baidurya Bhattacharya

Department of Civil Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Autumn Semester, 2013-14
December 4, 2013
 DECLARATION

I certify that

(a) The work contained in this report has been done by me under the guidance of my supervisor.

(b) The work has not been submitted to any other Institute for any degree or diploma.

(c) I have conformed to the norms and guidelines given in the Ethical Code of Conduct of the
Institute.

(d) Whenever I have used materials (data, theoretical analysis, figures, and text) from other
sources, I have given due credit to them by citing them in the text of the thesis and giving their
details in the references. Further, I have taken permission from the copyright owners of the
sources, whenever necessary.

Date: Thontepu Sri Kalyan

Place: Kharagpur 10CE31010

2
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF THECHNOLOGY, KHARAGPUR
KHARAGPUR-721302, INDIA

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project report entitled “Seismic Reliability study of 2-D Steel Frame
Structures using Non-Linear Dynamic Analysis for Mumbai city” submitted by Thontepu
Sri Kalyan (Roll No. 10CE31010) to Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur towards partial
fulfillment of requirements for the award of degree of Bachelor of Technology(Hons.) in Civil
Engineering is a record of bonafide work carried out by him/her under my/our supervision and
guidance during Autumn Semester 2013-14.

Prof.
Date: Department of Civil Engineering
Place: Kharagpur Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur, India

3
Acknowledgement

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Baidurya Bhattacharya for his
encouragement, guidance, and support. And it would be unfair if I didn‘t mention about the
Research scholar Mr. Puneet Patra who has inspired me a lot and helped me in my project
relentlessly every day and night. I would also like to thank Prof. Arghya Deb for his support in
the development of the model. Without the support and encouragement from these people this
project would not have been possible.

Especially, I would like to give my special thanks to my parents and my family whose patient
love enabled me to sustain in a competitive environment.

4
Contents

SYNOPSIS .......................................................................................................7

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................8

2.0 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE ............................................................................9

3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ...............................................................................10

4.0 METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................12

4.1 Record to record variability description .........................................................13

4.2 Demand Uncertainties.....................................................................................13

4.3 Capacity Uncertainties ....................................................................................15

4.4 Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) ............................................................16

4.5 Computing the drift capacity ..........................................................................16

4.6 Modeling Parameters and data used ...............................................................17

4.7 Natural Frequency Evaluation and Site Characteristics .................................18

4.8 Real time earthquake records..........................................................................18

5.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................19

6.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................25

5
List of Tables and Figures

Table 1: Statistical characteristics of the input random variables for capacity uncertainty.......... 16

Figure 1: Computation of drift capacity of structure .................................................................... 16

Figure 2: Simple Portal Frame Structure .......................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 3: Summary of far field Earthquake Events considered .....Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 4: Response spectra for different site conditions at Mumbai with 2% probability of
exceedance in 50 years.................................................................................................................. 20

Figure 5: Response spectra for different site conditions at Mumbai with 10% probability of
exceedance in 50 years.................................................................................................................. 20

Figure 6: Distribution of Maximum roof displacement corresponding to hazard level of 2%

probability of exceedance in 50 years ........................................................................................... 21

Figure 7: Distribution of Maximum roof displacement corresponding to hazard level of 10%

probability of exceedance in 50 years ........................................................................................... 21

Figure 8: Final Log-normal demand distributions obtained for (a) 2% probability of exceedance
in 50years (b) 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years ........................................................... 22

Table 2: Performance Levels in terms of peak transient IDR ........Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 3: Probability of failure at different hazard levels ...............Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 9: IDA Curves of the Portal Frame when subjected to different earthquake excitations
........................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

6
Synopsis

This work primarily deals with the study of seismic reliability analysis of steel structures in the
city of Mumbai using the latest SAC/FEMA guidelines. Total of 44 real time earthquake ground
excitation records are selected as prescribed by FEMA-695 which are then scaled to match the
spectral acceleration with a given probability of exceedance (10 %, and 2 % in 50 years). The
Uniform Hazard Response Spectrum (UHRS) developed for Mumbai has been employed here to
obtain the above spectral accelerations. The scaled records are then used for the nonlinear
dynamic analysis of a simple portal frame structure to yield the record to record variability of
demand (in terms of inter storey drift ratio (IDR)). Further uncertainties in demand arising from
etc. etc. etc. are taken care of based on available literature. The distribution of demand thus
obtained is used to estimate the probability of failure for the given structure at performance
levels defined in FEMA 273. Variability and uncertainty in Capacity values is also studied.

7
1. Introduction

Earthquakes can be considered as one of the greatest natural threats on account of its devastating

effects on the economy and lives of people in a country. In wake of the recent Sikkim earthquake

and the devastating effects it had on the structures of that region, questions were raised against

the design codes used in practice and the structural reliability of the existing structures. The city

of Mumbai has experienced the devastating Koyna (1967, Mw = 6.3), Khillari (1993, Mw = 6.1),

Jabalpur (1999, Mw = 5.8) and Bhuj (2001, Mw = 7.7) earthquakes in the past. Any future

earthquake of such magnitude can have severe effects both in terms of life loss and economic

disturbance. Thus the evaluation of Seismic Reliability of the structures in the city of Mumbai is

a necessity and needs to be addressed.

Reliability analysis of structures implies estimation of the limit state probabilities of a structure

under adverse/environmental loading for its intended period of use. The evaluation of the seismic

reliability of a structure at a given location is not so straight forward and there is no well-

defined/established procedure for its calculation. The major problems that need to be dealt with

while evaluating this reliability is the randomness and the uncertainty involved in the Capacity

and Demand parameters. Structural response/Demand (moments, stresses or displacements) due

to earthquakes are random in nature owing to randomness in the seismic excitation itself. Also

this randomness is often combined with imperfections in Structural modeling procedure adopted,

material property uncertainties, and earthquake orientation uncertainties.

Thus the most important aspect of the reliability analysis is the consideration of these

uncertainties and the accuracy of the reliability analysis depends upon how accurately all the

uncertainties are accounted for in the analysis.

8
2. Objective and Scope

2.1. Scaling of earthquake records achieved by using Newmark‘s algorithm for the evaluation of
spectral acceleration of a SDOF system modeled as mass-spring system

2.2. Development of 1 Storey Steel Portal Frame model in ABAQUS including Geometric and
Material non-linearity effects.

 Design of structure for seismic hazard in the city of Mumbai only

 Dynamic analysis using a FEM model in ABAQUS for evaluation of maximum

displacements.

2.3. Reliability analysis of steel moment frames under scaled ground excitations

 Evaluation of Demand uncertainty

 Capacity uncertainty determination

 Performance assessment for Two performance based limit states (S3 and S5) adopted
from FEMA 273 (1)
 Reliability estimation of steel moment frame structures

9
3. Literature Review

The concept of seismic reliability analysis of steel moment frame structures was developed in

1980‘s as a need to assess the reliability and performance levels of significant structures. And it

has further evolved from the study of simple approximate models to complex non-linear models.

The growth in computer processing power has made this evolution possible towards increasingly

accurate and more complex analysis methods. Thus, the state of the art has progressively moved

from elastic static analysis to dynamic elastic, non-linear static and finally non-linear dynamic

analysis. In the recent SAC/FEMA effort (Somerville et al 1997), the selection of the ground

excitations to match the spectral acceleration with a given probability of exceedance is extended

for all periods. Probabilistic Basis for the SAC/FEMA Steel Moment Frame Guidelines were

well established recently (Collins et al. 2002). The seismic reliability estimation method

performance evaluation for steel moment frames based on the developed probabilistic basis is

also developed (Yun et al. 2002).

The scaling factors required to match the earthquake records to the required spectral acceleration

are to be generated from the Uniform Hazard Spectrum (UHS) of the given site. UHS for the city

of Mumbai and the attenuation relationship was developed recently using the various past

earthquake records/data (Anbazhagan and Vipin 2009). Incremental Dynamic analysis method

was developed (Vamvatsikos and Collins 2002) as an extension to static pushover analysis to

calculate the values of required parameters by non-linear dynamic analysis method.

10
FEMA-273 proposed a set of design guidelines for different performance levels for seismic

response of steel moment frames. Three performance levels are proposed for the evaluation of

structural performance, namely Immediate Occupancy (IO) level, Life Safety (LS) level and

Collapse Prevention (CP) level. Immediate Occupancy level is defined as the situation when

minor local yielding occurs at a few places and no fractures has been detected after the

earthquake excitation. Life Safety level is defined as the situation when plastic hinges form at the

frame members. At this level, severe joint distortion occurs. Collapse Prevention level is defined

as the situation when extensive distortion of beams and columns panels is observed with a large

number of fracture regions. Here also shear connection remain intact. FEMA-273 suggests an

inter storey drift limit values of 0.7% for IO level, 2.5% for LS and 5% for CP.

11
4. Methodology

In performance evaluation and reliability analysis of structures the system performance is often
described in terms of demand and capacity. The demand can be the force (shear, bending
moment etc) or the response (displacement, acceleration, drift) caused by the ground excitation.
And the capacity of the system is the maximum forces or response that the system can withstand
without failure. The major problem that needs to be addressed while dealing with the seismic
reliability study is the evaluation of uncertainties involved in estimation of demand and capacity
distributions. Uncertainty can enter from two primary sources: (1) the input ground motion
record-to-record variability and (2) the mathematical model used to predict structural response. It
is found that simplified analytical procedures, such as nonlinear static analyses increase the
uncertainty in the estimation of structural demand. Therefore, there is an increasing trend to use
nonlinear response history analyses in next-generation performance-based design procedures
(ATC-58. PEER), as this provides a much more refined estimate of uncertainty and reduces the
bias and uncertainty associated with simplified analytical techniques.

4.1 Record to record variability description:

A rigorous evaluation of randomness involved in the estimation of capacity and demand values is
accomplished by using what is known as a probabilistic seismic demand model (PSDM), which
relates a selected Intensity Measure (IM) such as peak ground acceleration, peak ground
velocity, or first mode spectral acceleration, with Engineering Demand Parameters (EDP), such
as drift ratio or plastic rotation. PSDMs quantify demand randomness by applying a suite of
scaled ground motions representative of the site-specific hazard to the structural model using
nonlinear dynamic analyses. The use of suites of ground motions is necessary because each
ground motion will produce a different structural response, known as the record-to-record
variability. ATC-58 (2011) recommends that at least 20 ground motions are necessary to truly
represent the record-to-record variability in nonlinear structural response.

12
4.2 Demand uncertainties:

Seismic excitation to a given system can come from events at different times and of different
magnitudes, distances, focal depths and rupture surface geometries and features. The randomness
and uncertainty involved in these parameters come under the category of demand uncertainties
and the model/method employed for finding performance evaluation needs to employ certain
methods to cover the uncertainties involved in these parameters.

 Occurrence Time: Earthquakes can occur randomly over time and thus can lead to
randomness in the demand distribution. To consider this effect, it is best modelled using
either Bernoulli or Poisson process. The only parameter that is used while modelling is
the annual probability of occurrence, p, for the Bernoulli sequence or mean occurrence
rate ν, for the Poisson process.

 Epicentre Location: The exact location of future earthquake epicenter is also unknown.
Hence the distance to site location from the earthquake epicentre varies. To include this
uncertainty some random space distribution models can be used for this purpose. The
characteristics for this distribution can be obtained from the past earthquake records.

 Magnitude of earthquake, Path taken and Site: Further randomness and uncertainity
can be accounted to the magnitude of earthquake that can occur at a given site, path to be
followed by the generated seismic waves, and the nature of site which can result in the
attenuation or amplification process.

Thus all these effects of many random parameters associated with the source are included in the
attenuation model with the most important independent variables in the attenuation equations
being the magnitude (M), distance (R), and site soil classification (S).

But all these parameter uncertainties come into picture and should be implemented during the
synthetic generation of earthquake records whereas these parameter uncertainties are inbuilt and
already taken into consideration during the development of Uniform hazard spectra at a given
site. Thus the uncertainty involved is already covered by the UHS. Also unlike the seismic
hazard analysis where regional seismicity is used, the ground motions selected in SAC/FEMA
procedure may come from a seismicity environment that is totally different from that of the site.

13
Therefore strictly speaking, the ground motions generated in this procedure may not represent
any possible future events in this region. However, since after the scaling, their response spectra
match those which were obtained using regional seismicity and spectral acceleration is a good
predictor of structural response there are good reasons to believe that these ground motions
would produce structural response close to those caused by future ground motions at the site.

Also it has been pointed out by Miranda (2006) in his study that there is a significant uncertainty
in the estimation of fundamental periods for buildings when using the experimental period
relationship and this uncertainty will cause uncertainty in the estimation of interstory drift
demands. Uncertainties can also develop due to the Variation in the azimuth of attack, termed
orientation, of the ground motion. The orientation component is a significant factor, only for
near-fault site. For such sites, located within a few kilometres of the zone of fault rupture, the
fault parallel and fault-normal directions experience quite different shaking. For sites located
farther away from the fault, there is no statistical difference in the accelerograms recorded in
different directions. Thus uncertainty due to orientation is neglected in this study.

According to the recent development and study by Cornell et al. in 2002 the demand uncertainty
factor a is based on uncertainties related to the determination of median demand, D. One
significant source of uncertainty is due to inaccuracies in the analytical procedure, termed a for
analysis procedure. The a is nominally composed of five parts as follows: NTH associated with
uncertainties related to the extent that the benchmark, nonlinear time history analysis procedure,
represents actual physical behavior; damping associated with uncertainty in estimating the
damping value of the structure; mat. prop associated with uncertainty in material properties. The
NTH is assumed to be 0.15, 0.20, and 0.25 for 3-, 9-, and 20-story buildings, respectively, based
on judgment and on understanding of the relative importance of strength degradation. ‘s
computed for the effects on response of damping, live load, and material properties were set to
zero since the values were negligible when compared to NTH .

14
4.3 Capacity Uncertainties:

Structural capacity is the maximum displacement that a member or a system can withstand
without failure without reaching a prescribed limit state. The capacity is therefore dependent on
the material properties, member dimensions, system configuration, the limit state under
consideration, and methods and models used in describing the capacity. Thus in this work the
capacity uncertainty of materials, and then structural members are considered.

The member and system capacity depend directly on the material strength which is inherently
random. This randomness can be modelled by taking random generated suitable data for different
parameters under consideration. The mean and standard deviation (or coefficient of variation) is
used to describe variability of parameters and Normal or lognormal distribution is used for
convenience. The actual strength of the material of a given member may differ significantly from
the nominal values used in member capacity calculation. The correspondence between the
nominal value and the actual value therefore needs to be established to estimate the real member
capacity. The strength variability obviously depends on the material, manufacturing process, and
sometimes the testing protocol. Thus to include the randomness in the member capacity the
stiffness value of the members are randomly generated to incorporate the effects.

Thus all the material properties related uncertainties fall under this category. It is found that
various parameters that are used in modelling a structure are uncertain and thus the uncertainty
involved in them has to be taken. So in this work the material properties uncertainties are
included in the evaluation of capacity distribution with the help of values mentioned in the table
given below (Matjaz Dolzek, 2008).

15
 Table 1: Statistical characteristics of the input random variables for capacity uncertainty [11].

Parameter Mean COV Distribution

Mass 468.4Kg 0.1 Normal

Damping 5% 0.4 normal

Poisson ratio 0.3 0.01 normal

Yield strength 248Mpa 0.05 lognormal

Elastic modulus 200Gpa 0.1 normal

Width of flange in 140cm 0.1 Lognormal

beam

Width of flange in 100cm 0.1 Log normal

column

4.4 Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA)

The IDA or dynamic pushover is the continuous extension of a "single-point:' nonlinear response
history analysis in much the same way as the nonlinear static pushover analysis and is the
continuous extensional a "single-point" static analysis. IDA is done by conducting a series of
nonlinear lime-history analyses. The intensity of the ground motion measured using an IM is
incrementally increased in each analysis. An EDP, such as global drill ratio is monitored during
each analysis. Simpler options like linear static procedure, linear dynamic procedure, non linear
static procedure are available as given in SAC FEMA (Cornell et al. 2002). However, the degree
of accuracy is much lesser than in IDA.

4.5 Computing the drift capacity

If dynamic behaviour is taken into account, the drift capacity of a structure depends on the
earthquake record. Non-linear dynamic analysis for each earthquake record is run from a very

16
small value of Sa to the value of Sa where the structure collapses. The drift capacity of the
structure, used to identify the point of collapse, is computed as given in Yun et al. 2002

Fig 1: Computation of drift capacity of structure [6]

In Figure. 1, Line 1 represents the line whose slope is equal to the median elastic slope (Se).
Lines 2 and 3 represent the two rather extreme cases that may arise during an IDA run. It is often
observed that many members start yielding when the records are scaled beyond a particular level.
Line 2 represents this case. The structure is assumed to have failed as soon as the slope drops
below a limiting value (in the range 0.2Se-0.3Se)—in this paper we have taken the limit
conservatively as 0.3Se. Line 3 shows another case in which structural members do not fail in
quick succession. As a result, the Sa versus IDR curve remains fairly linear and its slope does not
deviate much.

4.6 Modeling Parameters and data used:

A simple portal frame of height 4m and span of 6m along with specifications as mentioned in

Figure 2 is considered initially to proceed with the reliability analysis procedure. 5% mass

proportional damping was assumed and the material properties were taken as

Young’s Modulus – 2 x 1011 N/m2 and Yield Stress – 2.48 x 108 N/m2

17
 Fig 2: Simple Portal Frame Structure

4.7 Natural Frequency Evaluation and Site Characteristics:

A finite element model is developed in Abaqus for subjecting seismic loads to the given frame

structure. Geometric non-linearity and material non-linearity are also included in the model. The

natural frequency of the frame is found to be 10.2 cycles/sec by performing modal analysis.

The frame structure model is subjected to real earthquake records scaled to hazard levels (2%

probability of exceedance in 50 years, 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years) corresponding

to the city of Mumbai and their performances were evaluated against 2 separate limit states

specified in FEMA-273. The ground type for design in the city of Mumbai is assumed as Type

C, described as: ‗Deep deposits of dense or medium dense sand, gravel or stiff clay with

thickness from several tens to many hundreds of meters.‘

4.8 Real time earthquake records:

According to latest guidelines of FEMA 695 a set of 22 real time earthquake records (44

individual components) is proposed to be used for nonlinear dynamic analysis of buildings and

evaluation of the probability of collapse for Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) ground

motions. These records meet a number of conflicting objectives, described below.

18
 Code (ASCE/SEI 7-05) Consistent

 Very Strong Ground Motions

 Large Number of Records

 Structure Type Independent

 Site Hazard Independent

Fig 3: Summary of far field Earthquake Events considered [12]

Thus these sets of 44 earthquake records are scaled accordingly for different hazard levels. An

idealized SDOF system with natural frequency corresponding to that of the given frame structure

is used for this purpose and Newark‘s algorithm is employed for the evaluation of spectral

acceleration values. The desired spectral acceleration values for the considered hazard levels are

obtained from the so called uniform hazard spectrum graphs developed for the city of Mumbai.

19
Fig 4: Response spectra for different site conditions at Mumbai with 2% probability of
exceedance in 50 years. [9]

Fig 5: Response spectra for different site conditions at Mumbai with 10% probability of
exceedance in 50 years. [9]

20
5. Results
5.1 Evaluation of Demand distribution:

The frame model is now subjected to the scaled earthquake records corresponding to both the

hazards under consideration and the maximum storey drift values are evaluated in each

earthquake record. It is found that the demand distribution at both the hazard levels (2%, 10%)

can be approximated by log-normal distribution with means 0.18, 0.13 and variances 0.03, 0.018.

Fig 6: Distribution of Maximum roof displacement corresponding to hazard level of 2%

probability of exceedance in 50 years

Fig 7: Distribution of Maximum roof displacement corresponding to hazard level of 10%

probability of exceedance in 50 years

21
The above developed approximation involves only the randomness due to record to record
variability, so the dispersion (β) value of 0.25 due to uncertainty in demand calculation is to be
invoked in the final lognormal approximation.

(a) (b)

Fig 8: Final Log-normal demand distributions obtained for (a) 2% probability of exceedance in
50years (b) 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years

5.2 Limit State Capacity and Reliability Calculation for deterministic capacity:

The deterministic structural capacity limit values (in terms of IDR) are obtained from FEMA 273
guidelines which are tabulated below

Table 2: Performance Levels in terms of peak transient IDR

Limit State Structural Capacity in terms Maximum Roof

of IDR Displacement (m)

Life Safety (LS) 2.5% 0.1

Collapse Prevention (CP) 5% 0.2

Thus from the above mentioned deterministic capacity limits from FEMA 273 guidelines the

probability of failure is calculated which is tabulated in the following table.

22
 Table 3: Probability of failure at different hazard levels

Hazard Level Probability of failure Probability of failure

(Life Safety) (Collapse Prevention)

2% Probability 0.57 0.31

10% Probability 0.45 0.22

5.3 Capacity Distribution:

As opposed to the usage of determinstic capacity limit values based on codal guidelines we can
also evaluate the capacity distribution for a given structure and then use the principle of
convolution to obtain the final probability of failure for a given hazard. For the estimation of the
so called capacity distribution both the uncertainity and randomness due to record to record
variability should be taken into account. Incremental Dynamic Analysis procedure is employed
for the evaluation of drift capacity of a given structure. Sample IDA curves obtained from the
above mentioned procedure is given below. The capacity values are obtained from these set of
IDA curves based on the selected criteria.

3
"first-mode" spectral acceleration Sa

2.5

2
(T1, 5%) (g)

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Maximum Inter Storey Drift Ratio

Fig 9: IDA Curves of the Portal Frame when subjected to different earthquake excitations

23
5.4 Works To Be Carried Out

 Extension to higher storey frame structures with more bays for better representation of real
structures.

 Extension to 3d frame structures subjected to both earthquakes in x and y direction.

 Developing demand distributions at different Sa values.

 Further refinement in Capacity distribution model by including other uncertainty parameters

into the model.

 Application of this seismic reliability analysis method in the nonlinear dynamic analysis of
steel frame structures using semi-rigid technique.

6. References

1. Yun, S.Y. et al.: "Seismic Performance Evaluation for Steel Moment Frames", Journal of
Structural Engineering 128-4 (2002)

2. Federal Emergency Management Agency: ―NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings‖, FEMA 273 (1997)

3. Federal Emergency Management Agency: ―Recommended seismic design criteria for new
steel moment frame buildings‖, FEMA 350 (2000)

4. Cornell, C.A. et al.: "Probabilistic Basis for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management
Agency Steel Moment Frame Guidelines", Journal of Structural Engineering 128-4 (2002)

5. Yun, S.Y. et al.: "Seismic Performance Evaluation for Steel Moment Frames", Journal of
Structural Engineering 128-4 (2002)

6. Patra, P. and Bhattacharya, B.: "An assessment of IS codal provisions for the design of low
rise steel moment frames through incremental dynamic analysis", Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering 9-2 (2010)

24
7. Raghu Kanth, S.T.G. and Iyengar, R.N.: "Seismic hazard estimation for Mumbai city",
Current Science 91-11 (2006)

8. Chopra, A.K.: "Dynamics of structures: Theory and applications to earthquake engineering",

3rd Edition, Pearson Publishers (2009)

9. Vipin, K. S., P. Anbazhagan, and T. G. Sitharam. "Estimation of peak ground acceleration

and spectral acceleration for South India with local site effects: probabilistic
approach." Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 9 (2009): 865-878.

10. Field, E. H. "Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA): A primer." (2005).

11. Dolsek, Matjaz. "Incremental dynamic analysis with consideration of modeling

uncertainties." Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 38.6 (2009): 805-825.

12. Venture, NEHRP Consultants Joint. "Evaluation of the FEMA P-695 Methodology for
Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors." NIST, USA (2010).

25