Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 373

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparing response of SDF systems to near‐fault and far‐fault earthquake motions in the context of spectral regions

Chopra, Anil K., Chintanapakdee, Chatpan·2001·Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics

Abstract

In spite of important differences in structural response to near‐fault and far‐fault ground motions, this paper aims at extending well‐known concepts and results, based on elastic and inelastic response spectra for far‐fault motions, to near‐fault motions. Compared are certain aspects of the response of elastic and inelastic SDF systems to the two types of motions in the context of the acceleration‐, velocity‐, and displacement‐sensitive regions of the response spectrum, leading to the following conclusions. (1) The velocity‐sensitive region for near‐fault motions is much narrower, and the acceleration‐sensitive and displacement‐sensitive regions are much wider, compared to far‐fault motions; the narrower velocity‐sensitive region is shifted to longer periods. (2) Although, for the same ductility factor, near‐fault ground motions impose a larger strength demand than far‐fault motions—both demands expressed as a fraction of their respective elastic demands—the strength reduction factors Ry for the two types of motions are similar over corresponding spectral regions. (3) Similarly, the ratio um/u0 of deformations of inelastic and elastic systems are similar for the two types of motions over corresponding spectral regions. (4) Design equations for Ry (and for um/u0) should explicitly recognize spectral regions so that the same equations apply to various classes of ground motions as long as the appropriate values of Ta, Tb and Tc are used. (5) The Veletsos–Newmark design equations with Ta=0.04 s, Tb=0.35 s, and Tc=0.79 s are equally valid for the fault‐normal component of near‐fault ground motions. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/eqe.92

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Chopra, A. K., & Chintanapakdee, C.
Venue
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-09-04
Volume
30
Issue
12
Pages
1769-1789
ISSN
  • 0098-8847 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9845
OpenAlex
W2096562209
Cited by
373
References
4
FWCI
28.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.