Earthquakes and Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Structural response analysis in time and frequency domain considering both ductility and strain rate effects under uniform and multiple-support earthquake excitations

  • Liu, Guohuan (State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University) ;
  • Lian, Jijian (State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University) ;
  • Liang, Chao (State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University) ;
  • Zhao, Mi (College of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Beijing University of Technology)
  • Received : 2015.11.01
  • Accepted : 2016.02.23
  • Published : 2016.05.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The structural dynamic behavior and yield strength considering both ductility and strain rate effects are analyzed in this article. For the single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system, the relationship between the relative velocity and the strain rate response is deduced and the strain rate spectrum is presented. The ductility factor can be incorporated into the strain rate spectrum conveniently based on the constant-ductility velocity response spectrum. With the application of strain rate spectrum, it is convenient to consider the ductility and strain rate effects in engineering practice. The modal combination method, i.e., square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method, is employed to calculate the maximum strain rate of the elastoplastic multiple-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) system under uniform excitation. Considering the spatially varying ground motions, a new response spectrum method is developed by incorporating the ductility factor and strain rate into the conventional response spectrum method. In order to further analyze the effects of strain rate and ductility on structural dynamic behavior and yield strength, the cantilever beam (one-dimensional) and the triangular element (two-dimensional) are taken as numerical examples to calculate their seismic responses in time domain. Numerical results show that the permanent displacements with and without considering the strain rate effect are significantly different from each other. It is not only necessary in theory but also significant in engineering practice to take the ductility and strain rate effects into consideration.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : National Natural Science Foundation of China

References

  1. Alzubaidi, R. and Lafta, S.H. (2013), "Effect of strain rate on the strength characteristics of soil-lime mixture", Geotech. Geol. Eng., 31(4), 1317-1327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-013-9653-3
  2. Carlson, C.P., Zekkos, D. and Mccormick, J.P. (2014), "Impact of time and frequency Domain ground motion modification on the Response of a SDOF system", Earthq. Struct., 7(6), 1283-1301. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2014.7.6.1283
  3. Cervera, M., Oliver, J. and Manzoli, O. (1996), "A rate-dependent isotropic damage model for theseismic analysis of concrete dams", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 25(9), 987-1010. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199609)25:9<987::AID-EQE599>3.0.CO;2-X
  4. Chopra, A.K. (2001), Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, 2nd, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.
  5. Chopra, A.K. and Chintanapakdee, C. (2004), "Inelastic deformation rates for design and evaluation of structures: single-degree-of-freedom bilinear systems", J. Struct. Eng., 130(9), 1310-1319.
  6. Clough, R.W. (1962), "Earthquake analysis by response spectrum superposition", Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer., 52(3), 693-697.
  7. Clough, R.W. and Penzien, J. (1993), Dynamics of Structures. 2nd, McGraw-Hill, USA.
  8. COMITE EURO-INTERNATIONAL DU BETON. (1990), CEBFIP model code 1990, Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, Great Britain.
  9. Guo, W., Yu, Z.W., Liu, G.H. and Guo, Z. (2013), "Possible existing seismic analysis errors of long span structures and bridges while utilizing multi-point earthquake calculation models", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 11(5), 1683-1710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9462-3
  10. Hao, H. (1991), "Response of multiply-supported rigid plate to spatially correlated seismic excitations", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 20(9), 821-838. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290200903
  11. Hao, H. and Xiao, N.D. (1996), "Multiple excitation effects on response of symmetric buildings", Eng. Struct., 18(9), 732-740. https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-0296(95)00217-0
  12. Huh, H., Lin, J.H. and Park, S.H. (2009), "High speed tensile test of steel sheets for the stress-strain curve at the intermediate strain rate", Int. J. Auto. Technol., 10(2), 195-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12239-009-0023-3
  13. International Code Council (2003), International Building Code (IBC), Falls Church, Virginia, USA.
  14. International Conference of building Officials (1997), Uniform Building Code (UBC), Whittier, California, USA.
  15. Kiureghian, A.D. and Neumnhofer, A. (1992), "Response spectrum method for multiple-support seismic excitations", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 21(8), 713-740. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290210805
  16. Li, G. and Larry, A. Fahnestock (2013), "Seismic response of single-degree-of-freedom systems representing low-ductility steel concentrically-braced frames with reserve capacity", J. Struct. Eng., 139(2), 199-211. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000623
  17. Li, M. and Li, H.N. (2010), "Dynamic test and constitutive model for reinforcing steel", China Civ. Eng. J., 43(4), 70-75. (in Chinese)
  18. Li, M. and Li, H.N. (2012), "Effects of strain rate on reinforced concrete structure under seismic loading", Adv. Struct. Eng., 15(3), 461. https://doi.org/10.1260/1369-4332.15.3.461
  19. Medina, R.A. and Krawinkler, H. (2005), "Strength demand issues relevant for the seismic design of moment-resisting frames", Earthq. Spectra, 21(2), 415-439. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1896958
  20. Shing, P.S.B. and Mahin, S.A. (1988), "Rate-of-Loading Effects on Pseudodynamic Tests", J. Struct. Eng., 114(11), 2403-2420. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:11(2403)
  21. Singh, M.P. and Mehta, K.B. (1983), "Seismic design response by an alternative SRSS rule", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 11(6), 771-783. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290110605
  22. Sinha, R. and Igusa, T. (1995), "CQC and SRSS methods for non-classically damped structures", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 24(4), 615-619. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290240410
  23. Su, L. and Shi, J.T. (2013), "Displacement-based earthquake loss assessment methodology for RC frames infilled with masonry panels", Eng. Struct., 48, 430-441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.08.036
  24. Su, L., Dong, S.L. and Kato, S. (2006), "A new average response spectrum method for linear response analysis of structures to spatial earthquake ground motions", Eng. Struct., 28(13), 1835-1842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.03.009
  25. Tian, L. and Li, H.N. (2010), "Seismic response of power transmission tower-line system subjected to spatially varying ground motions", Math. Prob. Eng., 2010, 587317.
  26. Tian, L., Ma, R.S., Li, H.N. and Zhang, P. (2014), "Seismic response of straight line type and broken line type transmission lines subjected to non-uniform seismic excitations", Adv. Steel Constr., 10(1), 85-98.
  27. Wang, W.M., Li, H.N. and Tian, L. (2013), "Progressive collapse analysis of transmission tower-line system under earthquake", Adv. Steel Constr., 9(2), 161-172.
  28. Xu, Z.D. (2010), "Review for dynamic researches in civil engineering in recent years", Sci, China Technol. Sci., 53(5), 1450-1452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-010-0186-1
  29. Yu, R.F. and Zhou, X.Y. (2008), "Response spectrum analysis for non-classically damped linear system with multiple-support excitations", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 6(2), 261-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-007-9048-z
  30. Zhai, C.H. and Xie, L.L. (2007), "Progress on strength reduction factors in structural seismic design", J. Harbin Inst. Tech., 39(8), 1177-1184. (in Chinese)

Cited by

  1. Energy Dissipation and Local, Story, and Global Ductility Reduction Factors in Steel Frames under Vibrations Produced by Earthquakes vol.2018, pp.1875-9203, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9713685
  2. Effectiveness of Soil–Structure Interaction and Dynamic Characteristics on Cable-Stayed Bridges Subjected to Multiple Support Excitation vol.18, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-018-0069-z
  3. Local, Story, and Global Ductility Evaluation for Complex 2D Steel Buildings: Pushover and Dynamic Analysis vol.9, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/app9010200
  4. Seismic structural demands and inelastic deformation ratios: a theoretical approach vol.12, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.12.4.397