Structural Engineering and Mechanics

  • 제53권5호
  • /
  • Pages.957-979
  • /
  • 2015
  • /
  • 1225-4568(pISSN)
  • /
  • 1598-6217(eISSN)
테크노프레스 (Techno-Press)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Parameters affecting the seismic response of buildings under bi-directional excitation

  • Fontara, Ioanna-Kleoniki M. (Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, University Campus) ;
  • Kostinakis, Konstantinos G. (Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, University Campus) ;
  • Manoukas, Grigorios E. (Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, University Campus) ;
  • Athanatopoulou, Asimina M. (Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, University Campus)
  • 투고 : 2013.08.12
  • 심사 : 2014.11.18
  • 발행 : 2015.03.10
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The present paper investigates the influence of the orientation of the ground-motion reference axes, the seismic incident angle and the seismic intensity level on the inelastic response of asymmetric reinforced concrete buildings. A single storey asymmetric building is analyzed by nonlinear dynamic analyses under twenty bi-directional ground motions. The analyses are performed for many angles of incidence and four seismic intensity levels. Moreover three different pairs of the horizontal accelerograms corresponding to the input seismic motion are considered: a) the recorded accelerograms, b) the corresponding uncorrelated accelerograms, and c) the completely correlated accelerograms. The nonlinear response is evaluated by the overall structural damage index. The results of this study demonstrate that the inelastic seismic response depends on the orientation of the ground-motion reference axes, since the three individual pairs of accelerograms corresponding to the same ground motion (recorded, uncorrelated and completely correlated) can cause different structural damage level for the same incident angle. Furthermore, the use of the recorded accelerograms as seismic input does not always lead to the critical case of study. It is also shown that there is not a particular seismic incident angle or range of angles that leads to the maximum values of damage index regardless of the seismic intensity level or the ground-motion reference axes.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Arias, A. (1970), "A measure of earthquake intensity", Ed. Hansen, R.J., Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  2. Athanatopoulou, A.M. (2005), "Critical orientation of three correlated seismic components", Eng. Struct., 27, 301-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.10.011
  3. Athanatopoulou, A.M. and Avramidis, I.E. (2006), "Effects of seismic directivity on structural response", Proceedings of 2nd fib Congress, Naples, Italy, Paper ID 8-15.
  4. Athanatopoulou, A.M., Tsourekas, A. and Papamanolis, G. (2005), "Variation of response with incident angle under two horizontal correlated seismic components", Proceedings of the Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structure V, Skiathos, Greece.
  5. Athanatopoulou, A.M., Anastasiadis, K. and Avramidis, I.E. (2006), "Influence of seismic incident angle on response values", Proceedings of 15th Greek Conference of Concrete Structures, Vol. B, Alexandroupoli, Greece. (in Greek)
  6. ASCE 41-06 (2009), Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
  7. Beyer, K. and Bommer, J. (2007), "Selection and scaling of real accelerograms for bi-directional loading: a review of current practice and code provisions", J. Earthq. Eng., 11, 13-45.
  8. Catalan, A., Benavent-Climent, A. and Cahisc, X. (2010), "Selection and scaling of earthquake records in assessment of structures in low-to-moderate seismicity zones", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 30(1-2), 40-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.09.003
  9. Carr, A.J. (2004), "Ruaumoko - a program for inelastic time-history analysis, Program manual", Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
  10. CEN (2003), Eurocode 8, Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
  11. Chen, C. (1975), "Definition of Statistically Independent Time Histories", J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 101(Nst2), 449-451.
  12. Dolsek, M. and Fajfar, P, (2002), "Mathematical modeling of an infilled RC frame structure based on the results of pseudo-dynamic tests", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31, 1215-1230. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.154
  13. EAK 2003 (2003), Greek Code for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Ministry of Environment, Planning and Public Works, Greece
  14. EKOS 2000 (2000), Greek Code for the Design and Construction of Concrete Works, Greek Ministry of Environment, Planning and Public Works, Greece
  15. Hancock, J. and Bommer, J.J. (2008), "Numbers of scaled and matched accelerograms required for inelastic dynamic analyses", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 37(14), 1585-1607. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.827
  16. Kostinakis, K., Athanatopoulou, A. and Avramidis, I. (2008), "Maximum response and critical incident angle in special classes of buildings subjected to two horizontal seismic components", Proceedings of the 6th GRACM International Congress on Computational Mechanics, Thessaloniki, Greece.
  17. Khoshnoudian, F. and Poursha, M. (2004), "Response of three dimensional buildings under bi-directional and unidirectional seismic excitations", Proceedings of 13th world conference on earthquake engineering.
  18. Lagaros, N.D. (2010a),"Multicomponent incremental dynamic analysis considering variable incident angle", Struct. Infrastr. Eng., 6, 77-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732470802663805
  19. Lagaros, N.D. (2010b), "The impact of the earthquake incident angle on the seismic loss estimation", Eng. Struct., 32, 1577-1589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.02.006
  20. Nguyen, V.T. and Kim, D.K. (2013), "Influence of incident angles of earthquakes on inelastic responses of asymmetric-plan structures", Struct. Eng. Mech., 45(3), 373-389. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2013.45.3.373
  21. Lucchini, A., Monti, G. and Kunnath, S. (2011), "Nonlinear response of two-way asymmetric single-story building under biaxial excitation", J. Struct. Eng., 137(1), 34-40. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000266
  22. MacRae, G.A. and Mattheis, J. (2000), "Three dimensional steel building response to near-fault motions", J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 126(1), 117-26. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:1(117)
  23. Oyarzo-Vera, C. and Chouw, N. (2008), "Comparison of record scaling methods proposed by standards currently applied indifferent countries", Proceedings of 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.
  24. FEMA 356 (2000), Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
  25. Park, Y.J. and Ang, A.H.S. (1985), "Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete", J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 111(ST4), 722-739. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1985)111:4(722)
  26. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) (2003), Strong Motion Database, http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat.PEER (2005), NGA database (where NGA stands for "Next Generation of Attenuation") with records orientated in fault-normal and fault-parallel orientation, PEER strong- motion database (http://peer.berkeley.edu/nga/index.html), Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley.
  27. Penzien, J. and Watabe, M. (1975), "Characteristics of 3-D earthquake ground motions", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 3, 365-373.
  28. Reyes, J.C. and Chopra, A.K. (2012), "Modal pushover-based scaling of two components of ground motion records for nonlinear RHA of structures", Earthq. Spectra, 28(3), 1243-1267. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000069
  29. Rigato, A.B. and Medina, R.A. (2007), "Influence of angle of incidence on seismic demands for singlestorey structures subjected to bi-directional ground motions", Eng. Struct., 29, 2593-2601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.01.008
  30. Stathopoulos, K.G. and Anagnostopoulos, S.A. (2005), "Inelastic torsion of multistorey buildings under earthquake excitationsa', Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 34, 1449-1465. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.486
  31. Takewaki, I. and Tsujimoto, H. (2011), "Scaling of design earthquake ground motions for tall buildings based on drift and input energy demands", Earthq. Struct., 2(2), 171-187. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2011.2.2.171
  32. Wood, R.L. and Hutchinson, T.C. (2012), "Effects of ground motion scaling on nonlinear higher mode building response", Earthq. Struct., 3(6), 869-887. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2012.3.6.869
  33. Zhang, Y., Li, W.Q. and Fan, J.S. (2011), "Influence of earthquake attack angle on seismic demands for structures under bi-directional ground motions", Adv. Mater. Res., 255-260, 2330-2334. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.255-260.2330
  34. Zhang, Y., Li, Q.W. and Fan, J.S. (2012), "The maximum structural response of structures under bidirectional earthquake ground motions", Gongcheng Lixue/Eng. Mech., 29(11), 129-136.

피인용 문헌

  1. Estimating seismic response under bi-directional shaking per uni-directional analysis: Identification of preferred angle of incidence vol.106, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.12.022
  2. Evaluation of combination rules for multi-story buildings with asymmetric set-backs vol.11, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.11.1.179
  3. Maximum credible damage of RC bridge pier under bi-directional seismic excitation for all incidence angles vol.152, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.09.008
  4. Critical orientation of earthquake loading for building performance assessment using lateral force analysis vol.15, pp.12, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0176-9
  5. Influence of seismic incident angle on response of symmetric in plan buildings 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-017-1279-1
  6. Prediction of the peak seismic response of asymmetric buildings under bidirectional horizontal ground motion using equivalent SDOF model vol.1, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/2475-8876.1007
  7. Incremental dynamic analysis applied to assessment of structure-specific earthquake IMs in 3D R/C buildings vol.125, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.07.007
  8. The role of masonry infills on the damage response of R/C buildings subjected to seismic sequences vol.131, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.10.039
  9. Graphic dynamic prediction of polarized earthquake incidence response for plan-irregular single story buildings vol.16, pp.10, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0357-1
  10. The impact of successive earthquakes on the seismic damage of multistorey 3D R/C buildings vol.12, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.12.1.001
  11. Combination Rules Used to Account for Orthogonal Seismic Effects: State-of-the-Art Review vol.145, pp.11, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0002420
  12. Peak seismic response of a symmetric base-isolated steel building: near vs. far fault excitations and varying incident angle vol.18, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2020.18.3.349
  13. Estimating Seismic Response of RC Piers under Unidirectional and Bidirectional Shaking: A Mechanics-Based Approach vol.146, pp.7, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0002663
  14. Discussion of “Combination Rules Used to Account for Orthogonal Seismic Effects: State-of-the-Art Review” by Jianze Wang, Henry V. Burton, and Kaoshan Dai vol.146, pp.8, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0002750
  15. Closure to “Combination Rules Used to Account for Orthogonal Seismic Effects: State-of-the-Art Review” by Jianze Wang, Henry V. Burton, and Kaoshan Dai vol.146, pp.8, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0002751
  16. Optimization of the seismic performance of masonry infilled R/C buildings at the stage of design using artificial neural networks vol.75, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2020.75.3.295
  17. Bidirectional Seismic Energy Input to an Isotropic Nonlinear One-Mass Two-Degree-of-Freedom System vol.11, pp.4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11040143
  18. Maximum mean square response and critical orientation under bi-directional seismic excitation vol.233, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.111881
  19. Rapid Prediction of Seismic Incident Angle’s Influence on the Damage Level of RC Buildings Using Artificial Neural Networks vol.12, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3390/app12031055
  20. Influence of Directionality on the Seismic Response of Typical RC Buildings vol.12, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3390/app12031534