Computers and Concrete

  • 제34권3호
  • /
  • Pages.329-346
  • /
  • 2024
  • /
  • 1598-8198(pISSN)
  • /
  • 1598-818X(eISSN)
테크노프레스 (Techno-Press)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Horizontal only and horizontal-vertical combined earthquake effects on three R/C frame building structures through linear time-history analysis (LTHA): An implementation to Turkey

  • Selcuk Bas (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Architecture and Design, Bartin University) ;
  • Mustafa A. Bilgin (Graduate School, Bartin University)
  • 투고 : 2022.11.26
  • 심사 : 2024.02.16
  • 발행 : 2024.09.25
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

In this study, it is aimed to investigate the vertical seismic performance of reinforced concrete (R/C) frame buildings in two different building stocks, one of which consists of those designed as per the previous Turkish Seismic Code (TSC-2007) that does not consider the vertical earthquake load, and the other of which consists of those designed as per the new Turkish Seismic Code (TSCB-2018) that considers the vertical earthquake load. For this aim, three R/C buildings with heights of 15 m, 24 m and 33 m are designed separately as per TSC-2007 and TSCB-2018 based on some limitations in terms of seismic zone, soil class and structural behavior factor (Rx/Ry) etc. The vertical earthquake motion effects are identified according to the linear time-history analyses (LTHA) that are performed separately for only horizontal (H) and combined horizontal+vertical (H+V) earthquake motions. LTHA is performed to predict how vertical earthquake motion affects the response of the designed buildings by comparing the linear response parameters of the base shear force, the base overturning, the base axial force, top-story vertical displacement. Nonlinear time-history analysis (NLTHA) is generally required for energy dissipative buildings, not required for design of buildings. In this study, the earthquake records are scaled to force the buildings in the linear range. Since nonlinear behavior is not expected from the buildings herein, the nonlinear time-history analysis (NLTHA) is not considered. Eleven earthquake acceleration records are considered by scaling them to the design spectrum given in TSCB-2018. The base shear force is obtained not to be affected from the combined H+V earthquake load for the buildings. The base overturning moment outcomes underline that the rigidity of the frame system in terms of the dimensions of the columns can be a critical parameter for the influence of the vertical earthquake motion on the buildings. In addition, the building stock from TSC-2007 is estimated to show better vertical earthquake performance than that of TSCB-2018. The vertical earthquake motion is found out to be highly effective on the base axial force of 33 m building rather than 15 m and 24 m buildings. Thus, the building height is a particularly important parameter for the base axial force. The percentage changes in the top-story vertical displacement of the buildings designed for both codes show an increase parallel to that in the base axial force results. To extrapolate more general results, it is clear to state that many buildings should be analyzed.

키워드

과제정보

The study presents the results from the M.Sc. thesis of master student Mr. M. Alper Bilgin under the supervision of Dr. Selcuk Bas at Bartin University. This work was also supported by The Scientific Research Project Coordinator of Bartin University with the project number of 2021-FEN-CY-003.

참고문헌

  1. Abrahamson, N. (1992), "Non-stationary spectral matching", Seismol. Res. Lett., 63(1), 1.
  2. AFAD (2024), Turkish Seismic Hazard Map (TDTH), Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD), Ankara, Turkey.
  3. Alipour, N.A., Sandikkaya, M.A. and Gulerce, Z. (2020), "Ground motion characterization for vertical ground motions in Turkey-Part 1: V/H ratio ground motion models", Pure Appl. Geophys., 177(5), 2083-2104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-019-02324-y.
  4. Ansari, M., Ansari, M. and Safiey, A. (2018), "Evaluation of seismic performance of mid-rise reinforced concrete frames subjected to far-field and near-field ground motions", Earthq. Struct., 15(5), 453-462. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2018.15.5.453.
  5. Argani, L.P. and Gajo, A. (2022), "A novel insight into vertical ground motion modelling in earthquake engineering", Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., 46(1), 164-186. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.3295.
  6. Aryan, H. and Ghassemieh, M. (2020), "Numerical assessment of vertical ground motion effects on highway bridges", Can. J. Civil Eng., 47(7), 790-800. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2019-0096.
  7. ASCE/SEI41-13 (2014), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA.
  8. ASCE/SEI7-10 (2010), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA.
  9. Bas, S. (2021), "Dynamic SSI effects on structural response of a R/C structure under vertical earthquake motion", Earthq. Struct., 21(4), 333-349. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2021.21.4.333.
  10. Bas, S. and Kalkan, I. (2016), "The effects of vertical earthquake motion on an R/C structure", Struct. Eng. Mech., 59(4), 719-737. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2016.59.4.719.
  11. Bas, S., Lee, J.H., Sevinc, M. and Kalkan, I. (2017), "Seismic performance of R/C structures under vertical ground motion", Comput. Concete, 20(4), 369-380. https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2017.20.4.369.
  12. Chen, Z.Y. and Jia, P. (2021), "Seismic response of underground stations with friction pendulum bearings under horizontal and vertical ground motions", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 15, 106984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106984.
  13. Chopra, A.K. and McKenna, F. (2016), "Modeling viscous damping in nonlinear response history analysis of buildings for earthquake excitation", Earth. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 45(2), 193-211. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2622.
  14. CSI (2019), SAP2000 for Integrated Structural Finite Element Analysis and Design of Structures, Computers and Structures Inc., Walnut Creek, CA, USA.
  15. Dilmac, H., Ulutas, H., Tekeli, H. and Demir, F. (2018), "The investigation of seismic performance of existing RC buildings with and without infill walls", Comput. Concete, 22(5), 439-447. https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2018.22.5.439.
  16. Elnashai, A.S. and Papazoglou, A.J. (1997), "Procedure and spectra for analysis of RC structures subjected to strong vertical earthquake loads", J. Earthq. Eng., 1(1), 121-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469708962364.
  17. Eurocode-8 (1998), Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures, CEN European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
  18. FEMA-450 (2004), NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 450). Part 1: Provisions, National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C., USA.
  19. Ghobarah, A. and Elnashai, A. (1998). "Contribution of vertical ground motion to the damage of RC buildings", The 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paris, France, September.
  20. Hamidia, M., Shokrollahi, N. and Ardakani, R.R. (2022), "The collapse margin ratio of steel frames considering the vertical component of earthquake ground motions", J. Constr. Steel Res., 188, 107054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2021.107054.
  21. Hancock, J., Watson-Lamprey, J., Abrahamson, N.A., Bommer, J.J., Markatis, A., McCoyh, E. and Mendis, R. (2006), "An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motion using wavelets", J. Earthq. Eng., 10(1), 67-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460609350629.
  22. Harrington, C.C. and Liel, A.B. (2016), "Collapse assessment of moment frame buildings, considering vertical ground shaking", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 45(15), 2475-2493. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2776.
  23. Hejazi, F.S.A. and Mohammadi, M.K. (2019), "Investigation on sloshing response of water rectangular tanks under horizontal and vertical near fault seismic excitations", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 116, 637-653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.10.015.
  24. Kallioras, S., Graziotti, F., Penna, A. and Magenes, G. (2022), "Effects of vertical ground motions on the dynamic response of URM structures: Comparative shake-table tests", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 51(2), 347-368. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3569.
  25. Liu, P.C. and Tsai, C.C. (2022), "Influence of local site condition on vertical-to-horizontal spectrum ratio - insight from site response analysis", J. Earthq. Eng., 26(5), 2283-2300. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1759473.
  26. Liu, T.T., Tantely, J.S. and He, Z. (2022), "Effect of vertical-to-horizontal acceleration ratio of earthquake components on the utilization of buckling-restrained braces in steel frames", Struct., 38, 1111-1124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.02.063.
  27. Mansouri, S. (2020), "The investigation of the effects of vertical earthquake component on seismic response of skewed reinforced concrete bridges", Int. J. Bridge Eng., 8(1), 35-52.
  28. NBC105 (1994), Nepal National Building Code, Ministry of Physical Planning and Works Department of Urban Development and Building Construction, Babar Mahal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
  29. NEHRP (2004), NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and other Structures, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.
  30. NZS1170.5 (2004), Structural Design Actions Part 5: Earthquake Actions, The New Zealand Standards Institute, Wellington, New Zealand.
  31. Papazoglou, A.J. and Elnashai, A.S. (1996), "Analytical and field evidence of the damaging effect of vertical earthquake ground motion", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 25(10), 1109-1137. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199610)25:10<1109::AID-EQE604>3.0.CO;2-0.
  32. PEER (2022), PEER Ground Motion Database, The Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), Berkeley, CA, USA. https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/
  33. Quaranta, G., Angelucci, G. and Mollaioli, F. (2022), "Near-fault earthquakes with pulse-like horizontal and vertical seismic ground motion components: Analysis and effects on elastomeric bearings", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 160, 107361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107361.
  34. Ramadan, F., Smerzini, C., Lanzano, G. and Pacor, F. (2021), "An empirical model for the vertical-to-horizontal spectral ratios for Italy", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 50(15), 4121-4141. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3548.
  35. Reyes, J.C. and Kalkan, E. (2011), Required Number of Records for ASCE/SEI 7 Ground Motion Scaling Procedure, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, USA.
  36. Ruiz-Garcia, J. (2018), "Examination of the vertical earthquake ground motion component during the September 19, 2017 (Mw = 7.1) earthquake in Mexico City", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 110, 13-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.03.029.
  37. Sta4CADv14.1 (2021), Software for Structural Analysis and Design of Structures, STA Computer, Engineering, and Consulting LLC, Istanbul, Turkey.
  38. Sun, Y.B., Cao, T.J. and Xiao, Y. (2019), "Full-scale steel column tests under simulated horizontal and vertical earthquake loadings", J. Constr. Steel Res., 163, 105767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.105767.
  39. Taslimi, A. and Tehranizadeh, M. (2022), "The effect of vertical near-field ground motions on the collapse risk of high-rise reinforced concrete frame-core wall structures", Adv. Struct. Eng., 25(2), 410-425. https://doi.org/10.1177/13694332211056106.
  40. Taslimi, A., Tehranizadeh, M. and Shamlu, M. (2021), "Seismic fragility analysis of RC frame-core wall buildings under the combined vertical and horizontal ground motions", Earthq. Struct., 20(2), 175-185. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2021.20.2.175.
  41. Tian, Y., Liu, X. and George, S. (2020), "Effects of vertical ground motion on seismic performance of reinforced concrete flat-plate buildings", J. Struct. Eng., 146(12), 04020258. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002840.
  42. TSC (2007), Turkish Seismic Code: Specification for Buildings to be Built in Earthquake Zones, Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD), Ankara, Turkey.
  43. TSCB (2018), Seismic Code for Building Structures, Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency of Turkey (AFAD), Ankara, Turkey.
  44. UBC (1997), Uniform Building Code, International Council of Building Officials, Whittier, CA, USA.
  45. Valdes-Vazquez, J.G., Garcia-Soto, A.D. and Jaimes, M.A . (2021), "Impact of the vertical component of earthquake ground motion in the performance level of steel buildings", Appl. Sci., 11(4), 1925. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041925.
  46. Wang, R., Zhu, T., Yu, J.K. and Zhang, J.M. (2022), "Influence of vertical ground motion on the seismic response of underground structures and underground-aboveground structure systems in liquefiable ground", Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Technol., 122, 104351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2021.104351.
  47. Zhu, C.Q., Cheng, H.L., Bao, Y.J., Chen, Z.Y. and Huang, Y. (2022), "Shaking table tests on the seismic response of slopes to near-fault ground motion", Geomech. Eng., 29(2), 133-143. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2022.29.2.133.