Earthquakes and Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Ground motion selection and scaling for seismic design of RC frames against collapse

  • Bayati, Zeinab (Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University) ;
  • Soltani, Masoud (Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University)
  • Received : 2014.10.01
  • Accepted : 2016.09.06
  • Published : 2016.09.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Quantitative estimation of seismic response of various structural systems at the collapse limit state is one of the most significant objectives in Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE). Assessing the effects of uncertainties, due to variability in ground motion characteristics and random nature of earthquakes, on nonlinear structural response is a pivotal issue regarding collapse safety prediction. Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) and fragility curves are utilized to estimate demand parameters and seismic performance levels of structures. Since producing these curves based on a large number of nonlinear dynamic analyses would be time-consuming, selection of appropriate earthquake ground motion records resulting in reliable responses with sufficient accuracy seems to be quite essential. The aim of this research study is to propose a methodology to assess the seismic behavior of reinforced concrete frames at collapse limit state via accurate estimation of seismic fragility curves for different Engineering Demand Parameters (EDPs) by using a limited number of ground motion records. Research results demonstrate that accurate estimating of structural collapse capacity is feasible through applying the proposed method offering an appropriate suite of limited ground motion records.

Keywords

References

  1. Aneshkani, M.A. and Soltani, M. (2010), "Modeling of probability of seismic collapse of Reinforced Concrete Frames considering relevant uncertainties", M.Sc. Thesis, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran.
  2. Applied Technology Council (1996), ATC 40, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, Redwood City, California, USA.
  3. Asgarian, B., Salehi, E. and Shokrgozar, H. (2016), "Probabilistic seismic evaluation of buckling restrained braced frames using DCFD and PSDA methods", Earthq. Struct., 10(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.10.1.001
  4. Eurocode 8 (2004), Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, European Committee for Standardization.
  5. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000), FEMA350, Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame building, SAC joint venture, Sacramento, California, USA.
  6. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000), FEMA 356, Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Sacramento, California, USA.
  7. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2005), FEMA 440, Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures, Redwood City, California, USA.
  8. Haselton, C.B. and Deierlein, G.G. (2007), "Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings", Report No. 156, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford, USA.
  9. Ibarra, L.F. and Krawinkler, H. (2005), "Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations", Peer Report No. 2005/06, University of California, Berkeley, USA.
  10. Iranian National Building Code (2004), Part 6: Loading, Tehran.
  11. Iranian National Building Code (2006), Part 9: Reinforced Concrete Structures, Tehran.
  12. Jalayer, F. and Cornell, C.A. (2003), "Direct probabilistic seismic analysis: implementing non-linear dynamic assessments", Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
  13. Kappos, A. (2001), Dynamic Loading and Design of Structures, Spon Press, London, UK.
  14. Kwon, O.S. and Elnashai, A. (2006), "The effect of material and ground motion uncertainty on the seismic vulnerability of RC structures", J. Eng. Struct., 28(2), 289-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.07.010
  15. Maekawa, K. and Okamura, H. (1983), "The deformational behavior and constitutive equation of concrete based on the elasto-plastic and fracture model", J. Fac. Eng., University of Tokyo (B), 37(2), 253-328.
  16. Maekawa, K., Pimanmas, A. and Okamura, H. (2003), Nonlinear Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete, SPON Press, New York, USA.
  17. Padgett, J. and Desroches, R. (2007), "Sensitivity of seismic response and fragility to parameter uncertainty", J. Struct. Eng., 133(12), 1710-1718. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:12(1710)
  18. PEER Ground Motion Database (2014), http://www.peerberkeley.com, University of California, Berkeley.
  19. Priestley, MJN, Calvi, GM. and Kowalsky, MJ. (2007), Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
  20. Shima, H., Chou, L. and Okamura, H. (1987), "Micro and macro models for bond in reinforced concrete", J. Fac. Eng., University of Tokyo (B), 39(2), 133-194.
  21. Shome, N. and Cornell, C.A. (1999), "Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures", Reliability of marine structures, Report No. RMS-35, Stanford University, USA.
  22. Standard No.2800 (2005), Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings, Tehran.
  23. Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C.A. (2002), "Seismic performance, capacity and reliability of structures as seen through incremental dynamic analysis", Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
  24. Zareian, F. and Krawinkler, H. (2007), "Assessment of probability of collapse and design for collapse safety", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 36(13), 1901-1914. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.702

Cited by

  1. Simulation based improved seismic fragility analysis of structures vol.12, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.12.5.569
  2. Proposal of a Incremental Modal Pushover Analysis (IMPA) vol.13, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.13.6.539
  3. Seismic responses of a metro tunnel in a ground fissure site vol.15, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2018.15.2.775
  4. Average spectral acceleration: Ground motion duration evaluation vol.14, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2018.14.6.577
  5. A rapid screening method for selection and modification of ground motions for time history analysis vol.16, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2019.16.1.029
  6. Component deformation-based collapse evaluation of RC frame under different collapse criteria vol.21, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2021.21.2.113
  7. Effect of Causality Filters of Accelerograms on Low-Rise Structure Responses vol.27, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)sc.1943-5576.0000631