Structural Engineering and Mechanics

  • 제60권6호
  • /
  • Pages.953-977
  • /
  • 2016
  • /
  • 1225-4568(pISSN)
  • /
  • 1598-6217(eISSN)
테크노프레스 (Techno-Press)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Statistical evaluation of drift demands of rc frames using code-compatible real ground motion record sets

  • 투고 : 2016.06.11
  • 심사 : 2016.09.25
  • 발행 : 2016.12.25
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Modern performance-based design methods require ways to determine the factual behavior of structures subjected to earthquakes. Drift ratio demands are important measures of structural and/or nonstructural damage of the structures in performance-based design. In this study, global drift ratio and interstory drift ratio demands, obtained by nonlinear time history analysis of three generic RC frames using code-compatible ground motion record sets, are statistically evaluated. Several ground motion record sets compatible with elastic design spectra defined for the local soil classes in Turkish Earthquake Code are used for the analyses. Variation of the drift ratio demands obtained from ground motion records in the sets and difference between the mean of drift ratio demands calculated for ground motion sets are evaluated. The results of the study indicate that i) variation of maximum drift ratio demands in the sets were high; ii) different drift ratio demands are calculated using different ground motion record sets although they are compatible with the same design spectra; iii) the effect of variability due to random causes on the total variability of drift ratio demands is much larger than the effect of variability due to differences between the mean of ground motion record sets; iv) global and interstory drift ratio demands obtained for different ground motion record sets can be accepted as simply random samples of the same population at %95 confidence level. The results are valid for all the generic frames and local soil classes considered in this study.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. ACI 318-08 (2008), Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
  2. Akkar, S., Yazgan, U. and Gulkan, P. (2005), "Drift estimates in frame buildings subjected to near fault ground motions", J. Struct. Eng., 131(7), 1014-1024. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:7(1014)
  3. Ambraseys, N.N., Douglas, J., Rinaldis, D., Berge, T.C., Suhadolc, P., Costa, G., Sigbjornsson, R. and Smit, P. (2004), "Dissemination of European Strong-Motion Data Vol. 2", CD-ROM collection, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Swindon.
  4. ASCE 07-05 (2006), Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
  5. ATC-40 (1996), Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.
  6. Baker, J.W. (2011), "The Conditional Mean Spectrum: a tool for ground motion selection", J. Struct. Eng., 137(3), 322-331 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000215
  7. Bazzurro, P. and Luco, N. (2005), "Accounting for uncertainty and correlation in earthquake loss estimation", Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Safety And Reliability (ICOSSAR), Rome, Italy.
  8. Beyer, K. and Bommer, J. (2007), "Selection and scaling of real accelerograms for bi-axial loading", J. Earthq. Eng., 11, 13-45.
  9. Bommer, J.J. and Ruggeri, C. (2002), "The specification of acceleration time-histories in seismic design codes", Eur. Earthq. Eng., 16(1), 3-16.
  10. D'Ambrisi, A. and Mezzi, M. (2005), "A probabilistic approach for estimating the seismic response of EP SDOF systems", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 34, 1737-1753. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.509
  11. EUROCODE-8 (2004), Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: General rules, Seismic actions and rules for buildings, EN1998-1-2004, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
  12. FEMA-368 (2001), NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington.
  13. FEMA-440 (2005), Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington.
  14. Gamst, G., Meyers, L.S. and Guarino, A.J. (2008), Analysis of Variance Designs - A Conceptual And Computational Approach with SPSS And SAS, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  15. Garcia, R.J. and Miranda, E. (2006), "Residual displacement ratios for assessment of existing structures", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 35, 315-336. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.523
  16. Garcia, R.J. and Miranda, E. (2007), "Probabilistic estimation of maximum inelastic displacement demands for performance-based design", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 9, 1235-1254.
  17. Garcia, R.J. and Miranda, E. (2010), "Probabilistic estimation of residual drift demands for seismic assessment of multi-story framed buildings", Eng. Struct., 32, 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.08.010
  18. GB (2010), Code for seismic design of buildings, China Architecture and Building Press, Beijing.
  19. Ghaffarzadeh, H., Talebian, N. and Kohandel, R. (2013), "Seismic demand evaluation of medium ductility RC moment frames using nonlinear procedures", Earthq. Eng. Vib., 12, 399-409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-013-0181-1
  20. Ghobarah, A. (2001), "Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: state of development", Eng. Struct., 23, 878-884. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(01)00036-0
  21. Gupta, A. and Krawinkler, H. (2000), "Estimation of seismic drift demands for frame structures", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 29, 1287-1305. https://doi.org/10.1002/1096-9845(200009)29:9<1287::AID-EQE971>3.0.CO;2-B
  22. Han, S.W. and Seok, S.W. (2014), "Efficient procedure for selecting and scaling ground motions for response history analysis", J. Struct. Eng., 140(1), 1-6.
  23. Haselton, C., Baker, J.W., Bozorgnia, Y., Goulet, C., Kalkan, E., Luco, N., Shantz, T., Shome, N., Stewart, J., Tothong, P., Watson-Lamprey, J. and Zareian, F. (2009), "Evaluation of ground motion selection and modification methods: Predicting median interstory drift response of buildings", Technical Report 2009/01, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California.
  24. Hatzigeorgiou, G.D. and Beskos, D.E. (2009), "Inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF structures subjected to repeated earthquakes", Eng. Struct., 31, 2744-2755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.07.002
  25. Hatzigeorgiou, G.D. and Liolios, A.A. (2010), "Nonlinear behaviour of RC frames under repeated strong ground motions", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 30, 1010-1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.04.013
  26. Iervolino, I., De Luca, F. and Cosenza, E. (2010b), "Spectral shape-based assemssment of SDOF nonlinear response to real, adjusted and artificial accelerograms", Eng. Struct., 32(9), 2276-2792.
  27. Iervolino, I., Galasso, C. and Cosenza, E. (2010a), "REXEL: Computer aided record selection for code-based seismic structural analysis", Bul. Earthq. Eng., 8, 339-362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-009-9146-1
  28. Iervolino, I., Maddaloni, G. and Cosenza, E. (2008), "Eurocode 8 compliant real record sets for seismic analysis of structures", J. Earthq. Eng., 12, 54-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460701457173
  29. Jayaram, N., Lin, T. and Baker, J.W. (2011), "A computationally efficient ground motion selection algorithm for matching a target response spectrum mean and variance", Earthq. Spectra, 27(3), 797-815. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3608002
  30. Katsanos, I.E., Sextos, G.A. and Manolis, D.G. (2010), "Selection of earthquake ground motion records: A State- of- the- art- review from a structural engineering perspective", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 30, 157-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.10.005
  31. Kayhan, A.H. (2012), "Armoni arastirmasi ile ivme kaydi secimi ve olceklendirme", IMO Teknik Dergi, 23, 5751-5775. (in Turkish)
  32. Kayhan, A.H. (2016), "Scaled and unscaled ground motion sets for uni-directional and bi-directional dynamic analysis", Earthq. Struct., 10(3), 563-588. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.10.3.563
  33. Kayhan, A.H., Korkmaz, K.A. and Irfanoglu, A. (2011), "Selecting and scaling real ground motion records using harmony search algorithm", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 31, 941-953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.02.009
  34. Lin, T., Haselton, C.B. and Baker, J.W. (2013a), "Conditional spectrum-based ground motion selection. Part I: Hazard consistency for risk-based assessments", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 42(11), 1847-1865. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2301
  35. Lin, T., Haselton, C.B. and Baker, J.W. (2013b), "Conditional spectrum-based ground motion selection. Part II: Intensity-based assessments and evaluation of alternative target spectra", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 42(11), 1867-1884. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2303
  36. Lin, Y. and Miranda, E. (2009), "Estimation of maximum roof displacement demands in regular multistory buildings", J. Eng. Mech., 136, 1-11.
  37. Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N. and Park, R. (1988), "Theoretical stress-strain model For confined concrete", J. Struct. Eng., 114(8), 1804-1825. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804)
  38. McGuire, R. (2004), Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis, EERI Monograph, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California.
  39. Medina, A.R. and Krawinkler, H. (2005), "Evaluation of drift demands for the seismic performance assessment of frames", J. Struct. Eng., 7, 1003-1013.
  40. Miranda, E. (1999) "Approximate seismic lateral deformation demand in multistory buildings", J. Struct. Eng., 125, 417-425. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1999)125:4(417)
  41. Park, R., Priestley, M.J.N. and Gill, W.D. (1982), "Ductility of square-confined concrete columns", J. Struct. Div., 108, 929-950.
  42. Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G.M. and Kowalsky, M.J. (2007), Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
  43. Riddell, R., Garcia, J.E. and Garces, E. (2002), "Inelastic deformation response of SDOF systems subjected to earthquakes", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31, 515-538. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.142
  44. SAP2000 (2009), Integrated Solution for Structural Analysis And Design, SAP2000 v14, Computers and Structures, Berkeley, California.
  45. SEAOC Vision 2000 Committee (1995), "Performance-based seismic engineering", Report prepared by Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California.
  46. TEC (2007), Turkish Earthquake Code: Specification for buildings to be constructed in seismic zones, Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Ankara.

피인용 문헌

  1. A statistical assessment on global drift ratio demands of mid-rise RC buildings using code-compatible real ground motion records vol.16, pp.11, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0384-y
  2. Effect of design spectral shape on inelastic response of RC frames subjected to spectrum matched ground motions vol.69, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2019.69.3.293
  3. Earthquake damage assessment of 1-story precast industrial buildings using damage probability matrices vol.17, pp.9, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00660-x