Earthquakes and Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Performance of RC moment frames with fixed and hinged supports under near-fault ground motions

  • Mohammadi, Mohammad Hossain (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kharazmi University) ;
  • Massumi, Ali (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kharazmi University) ;
  • Meshkat-Dini, Afshin (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kharazmi University)
  • Received : 2017.01.17
  • Accepted : 2017.06.20
  • Published : 2017.07.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The focus of this paper is the study on the seismic performance of RC buildings with two different connections at the base level under near-fault earthquakes. It is well-known that the impulsive nature of the near-fault ground motions causes severe damages to framed buildings especially at base connections. In the scope of this study, two types of 3-dimensional RC Moment Frames with Fixed Support (MFFS) and Hinged Support (MFHS) containing 5 and 10 stories are assessed under an ensemble of 11 strong ground motions by implementing nonlinear response history analysis. The most vulnerable locations of MFFS, are the connections of corner columns to foundation especially under strong earthquakes. On the other hand, using beams at the base level as well as hinged base connections in MFHS buildings, prevents damages of corner columns and achieves more ductile behavior. Results denote that the MFHS including Base Level Beams (BLB) significantly shows better behavior compared with MFFS, particularly under pulse-type records. Additionally, the first story beams and also interior components undergo more actions. Role of the BLBs are similar to fuses decreasing the flexural moments of the corner columns. The BLBs can be constructed as replaceable members which provide the reparability of structures.

Keywords

References

  1. ACI 318 (2014), Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary, American Concrete Institute; Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
  2. Alavi, B. and Krawinkler, H. (2001), Effects of Near-fault Ground Motions on Frame Structures, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, California, USA.
  3. Alavi, B. and Krawinkler, H. (2004), "Strengthening of momentresisting frame structures against near-fault ground motion effects", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 33(6), 707-722. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.370
  4. ASCE/SEI 7 (2010), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Virginia, USA.
  5. ASCE/SEI 41 (2013), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Virginia, USA.
  6. Anderson, J.C. and Bertero, V.V. (1987), "Uncertainties in establishing design earthquakes", J. Struct. Eng., 113(8), 1709-1724. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1987)113:8(1709)
  7. BHRC (2005), Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings (Standard No. 2800, 4th Edition), Tehran, Iran.
  8. Bolt, B.A. (1975), "The San Fernando earthquake, 1971. Magnitudes, aftershocks, and fault dynamics", Bull., 196.
  9. Champion, C. and Liel, A. (2012), "The effect of near-fault directivity on building seismic collapse risk", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 41(10), 1391-1409. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1188
  10. Dowrick, D.J. (2009), Earthquake Resistant Design and Risk Reduction, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA.
  11. Grigorian, C.E. and Grigorian, M. (2015), "Performance control and efficient design of rocking-wall moment frames", J. Struct. Eng., 142(2), 04015139.
  12. Hilber, H.M., Hughes, T.J. and Taylor, R.L. (1977), "Improved numerical dissipation for time integration algorithms in structural dynamics", Earthq. Engrg. Struct. D., 5(3), 283-292. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290050306
  13. Kalkan, E. and Kunnath, S.K. (2006), "Effects of fling step and forward-directivity on seismic response of buildings", Earthq. Spectra, 22(2), 367-390. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2192560
  14. Massumi, A. (2004), "Estimation of response modification factors for RC-MRF structures, emphasizing on the effect of overstrength and redundancy", Ph.D. Dissertation, Tarbiat Modares University, Iran.
  15. Massumi, A., Mahboubi, B. and Ameri, M.R. (2015), "Seismic response of RC frame structures strengthened by reinforced masonry infill panels", Earthq. Struct., 8(6), 1435-1452. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.8.6.1435
  16. Mazza, F. (2015), "Nonlinear incremental analysis of firedamaged RC base-isolated structures subjected to near-fault ground motions", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 77, 192-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.05.006
  17. Mazza, F. (2015), "Comparative study of the seismic response of RC framed buildings retrofitted using modern techniques", Earthq. Struct., 9(1), 29-48. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.9.1.029
  18. Mazza, F. (2017), "Nonlinear response of RC framed buildings retrofitted by different base-isolation systems under horizontal and vertical components of near-fault earthquakes", Earthq. Struct., 12(1), 135-144. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.12.1.135
  19. Naeim, F. (2001), The Seismic Design Handbook, (2nd Edition), Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, NY, USA.
  20. Paulay, T. and Priestley, M.J.N. (1992), Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA.
  21. Ponzo, F.C., Di Cesare, A., Nigro, D., Vulcano, A., Mazza, F., Dolce, M. and Moroni, C. (2012), "JET-PACS project: dynamic experimental tests and numerical results obtained for a steel frame equipped with hysteretic damped chevron braces", J. Earthq. Eng., 16(5), 662-685. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2012.657335
  22. Qu, Z., Wada, A., Motoyui, S., Sakata, H. and Kishiki, S. (2012), "Pin-supported walls for enhancing the seismic performance of building structures", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 41(14), 2075-2091. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2175
  23. Sehhati, R., Rodriguez-Marek, A., ElGawady, M. and Cofer, W.F. (2011), "Effects of near-fault ground motions and equivalent pulses on multi-story structures", Eng. Struct., 33(3), 767-779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.11.032
  24. Sorace, S. and Terenzi, G. (2014), "A viable base isolation strategy for the advanced seismic retrofit of an R/C building", Contemp. Eng. Sci., 7(17-20), 817-834. https://doi.org/10.12988/ces.2014.4549
  25. Stewart, J.P., Chiou, S.J., Bray, J.D., Graves, R.W., Somerville, P.G. and Abrahamson, N.A. (2002), "Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 22(9), 765-772. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(02)00097-0
  26. Takeda, T., Sozen, M.A. and Nielsen, N.N. (1970), "Reinforced concrete response to simulated earthquakes", J. Struct. Dyn., 96(12), 2557-2573.
  27. Tasnimi, A.A. and Massumi, A. (2007), Estimation of Response Modification Factors for RC-MRF Structures, Building and Housing Research Center (BHRC), Tehran, Iran.
  28. Van Cao, V. and Ronagh, H.R. (2014), "Correlation between parameters of pulse-type motions and damage of low-rise RC frames", Earthq. Struct., 7(3), 365-384. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2014.7.3.365
  29. Zhai, C.H., Zheng, Z., Li, S., Pan, X. and Xie, L.L. (2016), "Seismic response of nonstructural components considering the near-fault pulse-like ground motions", Earthq. Struct., 10(5), 1213-1232. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.10.5.1213

Cited by

  1. Near fault ground motion effects on seismic resilience of frame structures damaged in Wenchuan earthquake vol.16, pp.10, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2019.1704801