Earthquakes and Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of seismic assessment procedures for determining deformation demands in RC wall buildings

  • Fox, Matthew J. (Rose Programme, UME School, IUSS Pavia) ;
  • Sullivan, Timothy J. (Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Pavia) ;
  • Beyer, Katrin (School of Architecture, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique Federal de Lausanne)
  • Received : 2015.01.04
  • Accepted : 2015.04.22
  • Published : 2015.10.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This work evaluates the performance of a number of seismic assessment procedures when applied to a case study reinforced concrete (RC) wall building. The performance of each procedure is evaluated through its ability to accurately predict deformation demands, specifically, roof displacement, inter-storey drift ratio and wall curvatures are considered as the key engineering demand parameters. The different procedures include Direct Displacement-Based Assessment, nonlinear static analysis and nonlinear dynamic analysis. For the latter two approaches both lumped and distributed plasticity modelling are examined. To thoroughly test the different approaches the case study building is considered in different configurations to include the effects of unequal length walls and plan asymmetry. Recommendations are made as to which methods are suited to different scenarios, in particular focusing on the balance that needs to be made between accurate prediction of engineering demand parameters and the time and expertise required to undertake the different procedures. All methods are shown to have certain merits, but at the same time a number of the procedures are shown to have areas requiring further development. This work also highlights a number of key aspects related to the seismic response of RC wall buildings that may significantly impact the results of an assessment. These include the influence of higher-mode effects and variations in spectral shape with ductility demands.

Keywords

References

  1. Almeida, J.P., Tarquini, D. and Beyer, K. (2014), "Modelling approaches for inelastic behaviour of RC walls: multi-level assessment and dependability of results", Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, published online.
  2. Antoniou, S. and Pinho, R. (2004), "Development and verification of a displacement-based adaptive pushover procedure", J. Earthq. Eng., 8(5), 643-661. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460409350504
  3. Baker, J.W. (2011), "Conditional mean spectrum: tool for ground-motion selection", J. Struct. Eng., 137(3), 322-331. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000215
  4. Beyer, K., Dazio, A. and Priestley, M.J.N. (2008), Seismic design of torsionally eccentric buildings with Ushaped RC walls, Research Report No. ROSE-2008/03, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
  5. Beyer, K. and Bommer, J.J. (2007), "Selection and scaling of real accelerograms for bi-directional loading: a review of current practice and code provisions", J. Earthq. Eng., 11(S1), 13-45.
  6. Beyer, K., Simonini, S., Constantin, R. and Rutenberg, A. (2014), "Seismic shear distribution among interconnected cantilever walls of different lengths", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 43(10), 1423-1441. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2403
  7. Carr, A.J. (2007), Ruaumoko Manual - Volume 1: Theory, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury.
  8. Carr, A.J. (2008), Ruaumoko Manual - Volume 5: Appendices, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury.
  9. Carr, A.J. (2012) Ruaumoko Manual - Volume 3: User manual for the 3-dimensional version Ruaumoko3D, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
  10. Castillo, R. (2004), Seismic Design of Asymmetric Ductile Systems, PhD Thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
  11. Chopra, A.K. (2007), Dynamics of Structures - Theory and Application to Earthquake Engineering, 3rd edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
  12. Chopra, A.K. and Goel, R.K. (2001), "A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands: Evaluation for SAC building", Proceedings of SEAOC Convention, San Diego.
  13. Chopra, A.K. and Goel, R.K. (2002), "A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(3), 561-582. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.144
  14. Chopra, A.K. and Goel, R.K. (2004), "A modal pushover analysis to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan buildings", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 33(8), 903-927. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.380
  15. Clough, R.W. and Penzien, J. (1993), Dynamics of Structures, McGraw-Hill, New York.
  16. Comite Europeen de Normalisation (2004), "Eurocode 8, Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance - Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings", EN 1998-1, CEN, Brussels, Belgium.
  17. Comite Europeen de Normalisation (2005), "Eurocode 8, Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings", EN 1998-3, CEN, Brussels, Belgium.
  18. Correia, A.A., Almeida, J.P. and Pinho, R. (2013), "Seismic Energy Dissipation in Inelastic Frames: Understanding State-of-the-Practice Damping Models", Struct. Eng. Int., 23(2), 148-158. https://doi.org/10.2749/101686613X13439149157001
  19. De Luca, F., Vamvatsikos, D. and Iervolino, I. (2011), "Near-optimal bilinear fit of capacity curves for equivalent SDOF analysis", Proceedings - 3rd International Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Corfu, Greece.
  20. Fajfar, P. (1999), "Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 28(9), 979-993. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199909)28:9<979::AID-EQE850>3.0.CO;2-1
  21. Fajfar, P. (2000), "A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design", Earthq. Spectra, 16(3), 573-592. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586128
  22. Filippou, F.C., Popov, E.P. and Bertero, V.V. (1983), "Effects of bond deterioration on hysteretic behaviour of reinforced concrete joints", Report EERC 83-19, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
  23. Fox, M.J. Sullivan, T.J. and Beyer, K. (2014), "Comparison of force-based and displacement-based design approaches for RC coupled walls in New Zealand", Bull. NZ. Soc. Earthq. Eng., 47(3), 190-205.
  24. FEMA-273 (1997), "NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings", Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC.
  25. Gulkan, P. and Sozen, M. (1974), "Inelastic response of reinforced concrete structures to earthquake motions", ACI J., 71(12), 604-610.
  26. Gupta, B. and Kunnath, S.K. (2000), "Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic evaluation of structures", Earthq. Spectra, 6(2), 367-392.
  27. Iervolino, I., Maddaloni, G. and Cosenza, E. (2008), "Eurocode 8 compliant real record sets for seismic analysis of structures", J. Earthq. Eng., 12(1), 54-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460701457173
  28. Kreslin, M. and Fajfar, P. (2012), "The extended N2 method considering higher mode effects in both plan and elevation", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 10(2), 695-715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9319-6
  29. Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N. 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)
  30. Martinez-Rueda, J.E. and Elnashai, A.S. (1997), "Confined concrete model under cyclic load", Mater. Struct., 30(197), 139-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02486385
  31. Menegotto, M. and Pinto, P.E. (1973), "Method of analysis for cyclically loaded R.C. plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behaviour of elements under combined normal force and bending", Symposium on the Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well Defined Repeated Loads, International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland.
  32. Paulay, T. (2001), "Some design principles relevant to torsional phenomena in ductile buildings", J. Earthq. Eng., 5(3), 273-308. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460109350395
  33. Pennucci, D., Sullivan, T.J. and Calvi, G.M. (2015), "Inelastic higher-mode response in reinforced concrete wall structures", Earthq. Spectra, 31(3), 1493-1514. https://doi.org/10.1193/051213EQS123M
  34. Priestley, M.J.N. and Kowalsky, M.J. (1998), "Aspects of drift and ductility capacity of rectangular cantilever structural walls", Bull. NZ. Soc. Earthq. Eng., 31(4), 246-259.
  35. Priestley, M.J.N, Calvi, G.M. and Kowalsky, M.J. (2007), Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
  36. Priestley, M.J.N. and Grant, D.N. (2005), "Viscous damping in seismic design and analysis", J. Earthq. Eng., 9(sup2), 229-255. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363246905002365
  37. Scott, M.H. and Fenves, G.L. (2006), "Plastic hinge integration methods for force-based beam-column elements", J. Struct. Eng, 132(2), 244-252. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:2(244)
  38. Seismosoft (2013), SeismoStruct v6.5 - A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures, http://www.seismosoft.com.
  39. Smerzini, C., Galasso, C., Iervolino, I. and Paolucci, R. (2014), "Ground motion record selection based on broadband spectral compatibility", Earthq. Spectra, 30(4), 1427-1448. https://doi.org/10.1193/052312EQS197M
  40. Sullivan, T.J., Priestley, M.J.N. and Calvi, G.M. (2008), "Estimating the higher-mode response of ductile structures", J. Earthq. Eng., 12(3), 456-472. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460701512399
  41. Sullivan, T.J., Calvi, G.M. and Priestley, M.J.N. (2012), A Model Code for the Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures DBD12, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
  42. Sullivan. T.J., Welch, D.P. and Calvi, G.M. (2014), "Simplified seismic performance assessment and implications for seismic design", Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib., 13(Supp.1), 95-122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-014-0242-0
  43. Veletsos, A.S. and Newmark, N.M. (1960), "Effect of inelastic behaviour on the response of simple systems to earthquake motions", Proceedings - Second World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. II, Tokyo, Japan.
  44. Welch, D.P., Sullivan, T.J. and Calvi, G.M. (2014), "Developing direct displacement-based procedures for simplified loss assessment in performance-based earthquake engineering", J. Earthq. Eng., 18(2), 290-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2013.851046
  45. Yazgan, U. and Dazio, A. (2010), "Critical aspects of finite element modeling of RC structures for seismic performance assessment", Proceedings of the 9th U.S. National and 10th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Toronto, Canada.

Cited by

  1. Use of the conditional spectrum to incorporate record-to-record variability in simplified seismic assessment of RC wall buildings vol.45, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2669
  2. Technical Note: Practical Challenges Facing the Selection of Conditional Spectrum-Compatible Accelerograms vol.21, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1157527
  3. Sensitivity of engineering demand parameters as a function of structural typology and assessment method vol.343, pp.None, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2019.01.006
  4. A dynamic correction for the seismic analysis of structures vol.4, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-019-0205-4
  5. Investigating the effects of span arrangements on DDBD-designed RC buildings under the skew seismic attack vol.77, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2021.77.1.115
  6. Displacement-Based Seismic Assessment of the Likelihood of Failure of Reinforced Concrete Wall Buildings vol.11, pp.7, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11070295