Eta-based Conditional Mean Spectrum, a New Design Spectrum for Industrial Facilities

  • Alireza Azarbakht
Conference paper


The target spectrum which has been used most frequently for the seismic analysis of structures is the Uniform Hazard Response Spectrum (UHRS). The joint occurrence of the spectral values in different periods, in the development of UHRS, is a key assumption which remains questionable. The Conditional Mean Spectrum (CMS) has been recently developed by Baker et al. as an alternative for UHRS. The CMS provides the expected response spectrum conditioned on the occurrence of the target spectral acceleration value in the period of interest which can be accounted as an improvement of the UHRS. In order to enhance the CMS, the correlation between the Peak Ground Velocity (PGV) and the spectral acceleration values has been investigated in the current study, and finally, a newer form of target spectrum has been proposed. It is shown that the emerged new spectrum, named Eta-based Conditional Mean Spectrum (E-CMS), is more efficient than the conventional CMS in order to enhance the UHRS, especially in the case of industrial facilities.


Ground Motion Spectral Acceleration Peak Ground Velocity Industrial Facility Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Seed, H. B.; Lee, K. E.: Liquefaction of saturated sand during cyclic loading. J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, 92 (SM6), 1966, 105-134.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Osinov, V. A. Wave-induced liquefaction of a saturated sand layer. Continuum Mech. Thermodyn., 12(5), 2000, 325-339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Cudmani, R. ; Osinov V. A.; Bühler M. M.; Gudehus G.: A model for the evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility in layered soils due to earthquakes. In: Proceedings 12th Panamerican Conference on SMGE, Vol.1, 2003, 969-977.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Seed, H. B.; Idriss, I. M.: Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential; Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE}, Vol. 107, No. SM9, 1970, 1249-1274.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Niemunis, A.; Herle, I.: Hypoplastic model for cohesionless soils with elastic strain range; Mech. Cohesive-frictional Mater., 2(4); 1997: 279-299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Niemunis, A.: Extended hypoplastic models for soils; Institut für Grundbau und Bodenmechanik der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, No. 34; 2003.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Gudehus,G; Cudmani, R.O.; Libreros-Bertini, A.B.; Bühler, M.M.:In-plane and anti-plane strong shaking of soil systems and structures; Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 24; 2004; 319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Yoshida, N; Tokimatsu, K.; Yasuda, S.; Kokusho, T.; Okimura, T.: Geotechnical aspects of damage in adapazari city during 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake; Soils and Foundations, Vol. 41, No 4; 2001, 25-45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Zienkiewicz O. C.; Chang C. T.; Bettess P.: Drained, undrained, consolidating and dynamic behaviour assumptions in soils. Géotechnique, 30(4), 1980, 385-395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Zienkiewicz O. C.; Chan A. H. C.; Pastor M.; Schrefler B. A.; Shiomi T.: Computational geomechanics with special reference to earthquake engineering. Chichester, Wiley; 1999.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Ishihara, K.: Therzaghi oration: Geotechnical aspects of the 1995 Kobe earthquake; in Proceedings of 14th ICSMFE; 1997, 2047-2073.Google Scholar
  12. [12] Elgamal,,A-W.; Zeghal, M.; Parra, E.: Liquefaction of reclaimed island in Kobe, Japan; J. Geot. Eng. Div., ASCE, 122(1); 1996, 39-49.
    [12] Elgamal,,A-W.; Zeghal, M.; Parra, E.: Liquefaction of reclaimed island in Kobe, Japan; J. Geot. Eng. Div., ASCE, 122(1); 1996, 39-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Seed, R.B.; Dickenson, S.E.; Idriss, I.M.: Principal geotechnical aspects of the Loma Prieta earthquake; Soil and Foundations, Vol. 31, No 1; 1991. 1-26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Arulanandan, K.; Muraleetharan K. K.; Yogachandran C.: Seismic Response of Soil Deposits in San Francisco Marina District. J. Geot. and Geoenv. Eng., ASCE, 123(10); 1997, 965-974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Cudmani, R.; Cudmani, R.O.: Numerical study of the soil-structure interaction during strong earthquakes; in proceedings 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada; Paper Nr. 2959; 2004.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Newmark, N: Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments; Geotechnique, Vol.15, No. 2; 1965,139-160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alireza Azarbakht
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringArak UniversityArakIraq

Personalised recommendations