DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Efficient damage assessment for selected earthquake records based on spectral matching

  • Strukar, Kristina (Department for technical mechanics, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture Osijek) ;
  • Sipos, Tanja Kalman (Department for technical mechanics, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture Osijek) ;
  • Jelec, Mario (Department for materials and constructions, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture Osijek) ;
  • Hadzima-Nyarko, Marijana (Department for materials and constructions, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture Osijek)
  • Received : 2019.04.08
  • Accepted : 2019.06.19
  • Published : 2019.09.25

Abstract

Knowing the response of buildings to earthquakes is very important in order to ensure that a structure is able to withstand a given level of ground shaking. Thus, nonlinear dynamic earthquake engineering analyses are unavoidable and are preferable procedure in the seismic assessment of buildings. In order to estimate seismic performance on the basis of the hazard at the site where the structure is located, the selection of appropriate seismic input is known to be a critical step while performing this kind of analysis. In this paper, seismic analysis is performed for a four-story reinforced concrete ISPRA frame structure which is designed according to Eurocode 8 (EC8). A total of 90 different earthquake scenarios were selected, 30 for each of three target spectrums, EC8 spectrum, Uniform Hazard Spectrum (UHS), and Conditional Mean Spectrum (CMS). The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the average maximum Inter-story Drift Ratio (IDR) for each target spectrum. Time history analysis for every earthquake record was obtained and, as a result, IDR as the main measure of damage were presented in order to compare with defined performance levels of reinforced concrete bare frames.

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Croatian Science Foundation

References

  1. Iervolino, I. and Manfredi, G. (2008), "A review of ground motion record selection strategies for dynamic structural analysis", CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences, Courses and Lectures.
  2. Jordan, T.H., Marzocchi, W., Michael, A.J. and Gerstenberger, M.C. (2014), "Operational earthquake forecasting can enhance earthquake preparedness", Seismol. Res. Lett., 85(5), 955-59. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140143. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140143
  3. Katsanos, E. I., Sextos, A. G. and Manolis, G. D. (2010), "Selection of earthquake ground motion records: A state-of-theart review from a structural engineering perspective", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 30, 157-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.10.005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.10.005
  4. Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J. and Park, R. (1988), "Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete", J. Struct. Eng., 114(8), 1804-1826. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804)
  5. Menegotto, M. and Pinto, P.E. (1973), "Method of analysis for cyclically loaded reinforced concrete plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under combined normal force and bending", IABSE Symposium on Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well Defined Repeated Loads, Lisbon.
  6. Mousavi, M. et al. (2012), "The robust conditional mean spectrum", 15th World Conference on Earhtquake Engineering, September, Lisbon.
  7. Nooraie, M. and Behnamfar, F. (2012) "A new procedure for selection and modification of ground motion for nonlinear dynamic dynamic analysis", 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, September.
  8. PEER Ground Motion Database-PEER Center. https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/site.
  9. Pejovic, J. and Jankovic, S. (2015), "Ovisnost odziva armiranobetonskih visokih zgrada o mjeri intenziteta potresa", Građevinar, 67(8), 749-759.
  10. Pejovic, J., Serdar, N. and Pejovic, R. (2017), "Optimal intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand models of RC highrise buildings", Earthq. Struct., 13(3) 221-230. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.13.3.221. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.13.3.221
  11. SeismoMatch (2016), https://www.seismosoft.com/seismomatch/
  12. SeismoStruct (2016), https://www.seismosoft.com/seismostruct/
  13. Whittaker, A., Atkinson, G., Baker, J., Bray, J., Grant, D., Hamburger, R., ... and Somerville, P. (2011), "Selecting and scaling earthquake ground motions for performing response-History analyses NIST", 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, September, Lisbon.
  14. Baker, J.W. (2008), An Introduction to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA), White Paper.
  15. Baker, J.W. (2011), "Conditional mean spectrum: Tool for ground-motion selection", J. Struct. Eng., 137(3), 322-310. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000215. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000215
  16. Baker, J.W. and Allin Cornell, C. (2006), "Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 35(9), 1077-1095. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.571. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.571
  17. Bazzurro, P. and Cornell, C.A. (1999), "Disaggregation of seismic hazard", Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 89(2), 501-520.
  18. Behnamfar, F. and Velni, M.T. (2019), "A rapid screening method for selection and modification of ground motions for time history analysis", Earthq. Struct., 16(1), 29-39. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2019.16.1.029. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2019.16.1.029
  19. Bommer, J.J. and Acevedo, A.B. (2004), "The use of real earthquake accelerograms as input to dynamic analysis", J. Earthq. Eng., 8(1), 43-91.
  20. Bulajic, B.D., Manic, M.I. and Ladinovic, D. (2012), "Towards preparation of design spectra for Serbian national annex to Eurocode 8: Part II: Usage of the UHS approach instead of normalized spectral shapes scaled by a single PSHA parameter", Facta universitatis-series: Architecture and Civil Engineering, 10(3), 259-274. https://doi.org/10.2298/FUACE1203259B. https://doi.org/10.2298/FUACE1203259B
  21. Carballo, J.E. and Cornell, C.A. (2000), "Probabilistic seismic demand analysis: Spectrum matching and design", Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, California.
  22. Chioccarelli, E., Cito, P., Iervolino, I. and Giorgio, M. (2018), "REASSESS V2. 0: software for single-and multi-site probabilistic seismic hazard analysis", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 17(4), 1769-1793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-00531-x. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-00531-x
  23. Cornell, C.A. (1968), "Engineering seismic risk analysis" Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 58(5), 1583-606.
  24. Deb, S.K. and Kumar, G.S. (2004), "Seismic damage assessment of reinforced concrete buildings using fuzzy logic", 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, August.
  25. Dolsek, M. (2008), "OS nodeler-Examples of application", Report, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, University of Ljubljana.
  26. Field, E.H. (2005), "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) a primer", Retrieved May, 17, 2011.
  27. Ghobarah, A. (2004), "On drift limits associated with different damage levels", McMaster University, 1-12.
  28. HAZUS-MH 2.1, Advanced Engineering Building Module. https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/24609.
  29. HRN-EN 1992-1-1:2013 (2013), National Annex to Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. Part 1.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, European Committee for Standardization; Brussels, Belgium, December.
  30. HRN-EN 1998-1:2011 (2011), National Annex to Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Bruxelles, December.
  31. Araujo, M., Macedo, L., Marques, M. and Castro, J.M. (2016), "Code-based record selection methods for seismic performance assessment of buildings", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 45(1), 129-148. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2620. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2620
  32. ASCE (2014), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings ASCE/SEI 41-13, American Society of Civil Engineers,Reston, Virginia, USA.
  33. NZS (2004), Structural Design Actions, Part 5: Earthquake Actions-New Zealand, New Zealand Standard, Wellington, New Zealand.