THE ROLE OF SEISMIC POUNDING IN THE OPTIMAL SELECTION OF  GROUND-MOTION INTENSITY MEASURES

ABDULHAMEED A. YASEEN

doi:10.26682/sjuod.2017.20.1.51

ABDULHAMEED A. YASEEN Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Duhok, Kurdistan Region-Iraq

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26682/sjuod.2017.20.1.51

Keywords: Seismic Assessment, Time History Analysis, Structural Pounding, Ground-Motion

Abstract

To grant quantitative estimates of the expected levels of seismic ground motion as the primary input to seismic hazard assessments, it is vital to characterize the complicated nature of strong motion accelerograms using simple indices. Over the years, numerous ground-motion parameters have been suggested by researchers for that purpose, and to be used as indices of a ground motion’s damage potential. Finding a best correlated ground-motion parameter with the damage index, is a main goal of such type of studies. Minimizing the variability in this correlation is of great importance to determine the expected damage with a higher degree of accuracy. This paper presents an analysis of different ground-motion intensity measures (IMs) that can be used in assessing the performance of reinforced concrete buildings to test the impact of pounding on the optimal selection of ground-motion IMs. The occurrence of structural pounding in metropolitan cities is caused by the inadequate gap between adjacent buildings. Identifying the function in which the seismic pounding performs in selecting the most appropriate ground-motion IM, as an illustration of seismic action in a region of interest, is a main objective of the current study. Special cases of typical two-dimensional adjacent multi-story reinforced concrete buildings are analyzed using a number of natural earthquake time histories. The results indicated that, based on the number of records, the variability in the gap distance between buildings may lead to the selection of different IMs.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

 ACI Committee 318, (2002). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (ACI 318R-02), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan.
 ASCE. (2010). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE/SEI 7-10. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
 Alvanitopoulos, P. F., Andreadis I., & Elenas, A. (2010). Interdependence between damage indices and ground-motion parameters based on Hilbert–Huang transform. Measurement Science and Technology, 21(2), 025101.
 Arias, A. (1970). A Measure of Earthquake Intensity. In R. Hansen (Ed.), Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants (pp. 438-483). Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press.
 Bojórquez, E., & Iervolino, I. (2011). Spectral shape proxies and nonlinear structural response. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 31(7), 996-1008.
 Buratti, N. (2012). A comparison of the performances of various ground–motion intensity measures. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
 CEN (2003). Eurocode 8 - Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General rules, sesmic action, and rules for buildings (Report). Brussels: European Union, European Committee for Standardization.
 Chujo, T., Yoshikado, H., Sato, Y., Naganuma, K., & Kaneko, Y. (2016). Experimental and Analytical Investigations of Seismic Pounding of Adjacent 14-Story Reinforced Concrete Buildings Damaged in 1985 Mexico Earthquake. Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, 14(12), 753-769.
 Computers and Structures, INC. (2016). CSI Analysis Reference Manual for ASP2000, ETABS, and SAFE, Berkeley, Calif., USA.
 Elenas, A. (2013). Intensity Parameters as Damage Potential Descriptors of Earthquakes. In M. Papadrakakis, G. Stefanou, & V. Papadopoulos(Eds.), Computational Methods in Stochastic Dynamics (pp. 327-334). Springer Netherlands.
 Erbay, O. O. (2007). A Methodology to Assess Seismic Risk for Populations of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings (Report 07-10). Illinois: Mid-America Earthquake Center.
 Fajfar, P., Vidic, T., & Fischinger, M. (1990). A measure of earthquake motion capacity to damage medium-period structures. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 9(5), 236–242.
 Gehl, P., Seyedi, D. M., & Douglas, J. (2013). Vector-valued fragility functions for seismic risk evaluation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 11(2), 365-384.
 Gehl, P., Sy, S., & Seyedi, D. (2011, May). Developing fragility surfaces for more accurate seismic vulnerability assessment of masonry buildings. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 3rd Int. Conf. on Computational Methods in Struct. Dynam. & Earthq. Eng., Greece.
 Ghandil, M., & Aldaikh, H. (2016). Damage‐based seismic planar pounding analysis of adjacent symmetric buildings considering inelastic structure–soil–structure interaction. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics. doi: 10.1002/eqe.2848.
 Housner, G. W. (1952). Spectrum Intensities of Strong-Motion Earthquakes. Paper presented at the Symposium on Earthquake and Blast Effects on Structures (pp. 20-36).
 Jameel, M., Islam, A. B. M., Hussain, R. R., Hasan, S. D., & Khaleel, M. (2013). Non-linear FEM analysis of seismic induced pounding between neighbouring multi-storey structures. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures, 10(5), 921-939.
 Kafali, C., & Grigoriu, M. (2004). Seismic fragility analysis. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th ASCE Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability (PMC 2004). Albuquerque, NewMexico.
 Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
 Krawinkler, H., Medina, R. A., & Alavi, B. (2003). Seismic drift and ductility demands and their dependence on ground-motions. Engineering Structures, 25(5), 637-653.
 Licari, M., Sorace, S., & Terenzi, G. (2015). Nonlinear Modeling and Mitigation of Seismic Pounding between R/C Frame Buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 19(3), 431-460.
 Mackie, K. R., & Nielson, B. G. (2009). Uncertainty quantification in analytical bridge fragility curves. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2009 technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering Conference (pp. 1-12 ). Oakland, California.
 Nanos, N. (2011). A study on the importance of seismic parameter selection for the vulnerability assessment of mid-rise reinforced concrete structures. PhD Thesis, University of Portsmouth, UK.
 Padgett, J. E., Nielson, B. G. & DesRoches, R. (2008). Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 37(5), 711-725.
 Ramirez, C., & Miranda, E. (2009). Building-specific loss estimation methods and tools for simplified performance-based earthquake engineering (Report No. 171, Ph.D. Dissertation, John A.). Stanford University. United State: Blume Earthquake Engineering Center.
 Riddell, R. (2006). Correlation between Ground Motion Intensity Indices and Structural Response to Earthquakes. In J.J. Perez Gavilan (ed.), Earthquake Engineering Challenges and Trends(pp. 521-536). Mexico: Instituto de Ingeniera UNAM.
 Riddell, R., & Garcia, E. J. (2001). Hysteretic energy spectrum and damage control. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 30(12), 1791–1816.
 Seyedi, D. M., Gehl, P., Douglas, J., Davenne, L., Mezher, N. & Ghavamian, S. (2010), Development of seismic fragility surfaces for reinforced concrete buildings by means of nonlinear time-history analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 39(1), 91-108.
 Shome, N., Cornell, C. A., Bazzurro, P., & Carballo, J. E. (1998). Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses. Earthquake Spectra, 14(3), 469-500.
 Shome, N. (1999). Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. PhD dissertation. Stanford University, USA.
 Tubaldi, E., Barbato, M., & Ghazizadeh, S. (2012). A probabilistic performance-based risk assessment approach for seismic pounding with efficient application to linear systems. Structural Safety, 36, 14-22.
 Xu, C., & Wen, Z. (2012). Evaluation of Seismic Fragility of RC Frame Structure Using Vector-Valued Intensity Measures. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
 Yaseen, A., Begg, D., and Nanos, N. (2015) Seismic fragility assessment of low-rise unreinforced masonry buildings in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. International Journal of Structural Analysis & Design, 2 (1). pp. 1-9. ISSN 2372-4102
 Ye, L., Ma, Q., Miao, Z., Guan, H., & Zhuge, Y. (2011). Numerical and comparative study of earthquake intensity indices in seismic analysis. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 22(4), 362-381.
 Zareian, F., & Krawinkler, H. (2012). Conceptual performance-based seismic design using building-level and story-level decision support system. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 41(11), 1439–1453.