Coupled systems mechanics

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A shake table investigation on interaction between buildings in a row

  • Khatiwada, Sushil (Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Auckland) ;
  • Chouw, Nawawi (Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Auckland)
  • Received : 2013.05.14
  • Accepted : 2013.07.24
  • Published : 2013.06.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Pounding damage has been observed frequently in major earthquakes in the form of aesthetic, minor or major structural cracks and collapse of buildings. Studies have identified a building located at one end of a row of buildings as very vulnerable to pounding damage, while buildings in the interior of the same row are assumed to be safer. This study presents the results of a shake table investigation of pounding between two and three buildings in a row. Two steel portal frames, one stiffer and another more flexible, were subjected to pounding against a frame with eight other configurations. Three pounding arrangements were considered, i.e., the reference frame (1) on the right of the second frame, (2) in the middle of two identical frames, and (3) on the right of two identical frames. Zero seismic gap was adopted for all tests. Five different ground motions are applied from both directions (right to left and left to right). The amplification of the maximum deflection due to pounding was calculated for each configuration. The results showed that, for the stiffer building in a row, row building pounding is more hazardous than pounding between only two buildings. The location of the stiffer frame, whether at the end or the middle of the row, did not have much effect on the degree of amplification observed. Additionally, for all cases considered, pounding caused less amplification for stronger ground motions, i.e., the ground motions that produced higher maximum deflection without pounding than other ground motions.

Keywords

References

  1. Anagnostopoulos, S.A. (1988), "Pounding of buildings in series during earthquakes", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 16(3), 443-456. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290160311
  2. Anagnostopoulos S.A. (1996), "Building pounding re-examined: how serious a problem is it", Proceedings of 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, June.
  3. Anagnostopoulos, S.A. and Spiliopoulos, K.V. (1992), "An investigation of earthquake induced pounding between adjacent buildings", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 21(4), 289-302. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290210402
  4. Athanassiadou, C.J., Penelis, G.G. and Kappos, A.J. (1994), "Seismic response of adjacent buildings with similar or different dynamic characteristics", Earthq. Spectra., 10(2), 293-317. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585775
  5. Bothara, J.K., Jury, R.D., Wheeler, K. and Stevens, C. (2008), "Seismic assessment of buildings in Wellington: experiences and challenges", Proceedings of The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, October.
  6. Bi, K., Hao, H. and Chouw, N. (2011), "Influence of ground motion spatial variation, site condition and SSI on the required separation distances of bridge structures to avoid seismic pounding", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 40(9), 1027-1043. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1076
  7. Chau, K.T., Wei, X.X., Guo, X. and Shen, C.Y. (2003), "Experimental and theoretical simulations of seismic poundings between two adjacent structures", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 32(4), 537-554. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.231
  8. Chouw, N. (2002). "Influence of soil-structure interaction on pounding response of adjacent buildings due to near-source earthquakes", J. Appl. Mech.-T. Asem, 5, 543-553.
  9. Chouw, N. (2008). "Unequal SSI effect on seismic response of adjacent structures. In: From rules of thumb to reality", (Ed. C.Y. Chin), Proceedings of the 19th New Zealand Geotechnical Society Symposium on Soil-Structure Interaction
  10. Chouw, N. and Hao, H. (2012), "Pounding damage to buildings and bridges in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake", Protective Struct., 3(2), 123-139. https://doi.org/10.1260/2041-4196.3.2.123
  11. Chouw, N. and Hao, H. (2005), "Study of SSI and non-uniform ground motion effect on pounding between bridge girders", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 25(7), 717-728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.11.015
  12. Chouw, N. and Hao, H. (2008), "Significance of SSI and non-uniform near-fault ground motions in bridge response I: Effect on resonse with conventional expansion joint", Eng. Struct., 30(1), 141-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.03.002
  13. Chouw, N. and Hao, H. (2008), "Significance of SSI and non-uniform near-fault ground motions in bridge response II: Effect on resonse with modular expansion joint", Eng. Struct., 30(1), 154-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.02.020
  14. Cole, G..L., Dhakal, R.P., Carr, A. and Bull, D. (2010), "Building pounding state of the art: Identifying structures vulnerable to pounding damage", Proceedings of the NZSEE Annual Conference, Wellington, March.
  15. Cole, G.L., Dhakal, R.P. and Turner F.M. (2012), "Building pounding damage observed in the 2011 Christchurch earthquake", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 41(5), 893-913. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1164
  16. Filiatrault, A., Wagner, P. and Cherry, S. (1995), "Analytical prediction of experimental building pounding", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 24(8), 1131-1154. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290240807
  17. Jankowski, R. (2010), "Experimental study on earthquake-induced pounding between structural elements made of different building materials", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 39(3), 343-354.
  18. Jeng, V. and Tzeng, W.L. (2000), "Assessment of seismic pounding hazard for Taipei City", Eng. Struct., 22(5), 459-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(98)00123-0
  19. Kasai, K. and Maison, B.F. (1997), "Building pounding damage during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake", Eng. Struct., 19(3), 195-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(96)00082-X
  20. Ohta, R., Wijeyewickrema, A. and Farahani, A. (2006), "End building pounding during earthquakes", Proceedings of Symposium on Infrastructure Development and the Environment, Quezon City, December.
  21. Palermo, A., Wothersopoon, L.M., Wood, J., Chapman, H., Scott, A., Hogan, L. and Chouw, N. (2011), "Lessons learnt from 2011 christchurch earthquakes: analysis and assessment of bridges", B. New Zealand Soc. Earthq. Eng., 44(4), 319-333.
  22. Papadrakakis, M. and Mouzakis, H.P. (1995), "Earthquake simulator testing of pounding between adjacent buildings", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 24(6), 811-834. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290240604
  23. Rezavandi, A. and Moghadam, A. (2007), "Experimental and numerical study on pounding effects and mitigation techniques for adjacent structures", Adv. Struct. Eng., 10(2), 121-34. https://doi.org/10.1260/136943307780429752
  24. Rosenblueth, E. and Meli, R. (1986), "The 1985 earthquake: causes and effects in Mexico City", Concr. Int., 8(5), 23-34.
  25. Shakya, K. and Wijeyewickrema, A. (2009), "Mid-column pounding of multi-story reinforced concrete buildings considering soil effects", Adv. Struct. Eng., 12(1), 71-85. https://doi.org/10.1260/136943309787522687

Cited by

  1. Limitations in Simulation of Building Pounding in Earthquakes vol.5, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1260/2041-4196.5.2.123
  2. Numerical simulation of potential seismic pounding among adjacent buildings in series pp.1573-1456, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0455-0
  3. Seismic response of skewed bridges including pounding effects vol.14, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2018.14.5.467
  4. Seismic pounding effects on adjacent buildings in series with different alignment configurations vol.28, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2018.28.3.289
  5. Rigid block coupled with a 2 d.o.f. system: Numerical and experimental investigation vol.9, pp.6, 2013, https://doi.org/10.12989/csm.2020.9.6.539
  6. Seismic Fragility Functions for Non-Seismically Designed RC Structures Considering Pounding Effects vol.11, pp.12, 2013, https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11120665