Evaluating Probable Bending of Frames for Near-Field and Far-Field Records

Authors: Majid Saaly, Shahriar Tavousi Tafreshi, Mehdi Nazari Afshar

Abstract:

Most reinforced concrete structures are designed only under heavy loads have large transverse reinforcement spacing values, and therefore suffer severe failure after intense ground movements. The main goal of this paper is to compare the shear- and axial failure of concrete bending frames available in Tehran using Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) under near- and far-field records. For this purpose, IDA of 5, 10, and 15-story concrete structures were done under seven far-fault records and five near-faults records. The results show that in two-dimensional models of short-rise, mid-rise and high-rise reinforced concrete frames located on Type-3 soil, increasing the distance of the transverse reinforcement can increase the maximum inter-story drift ratio values up to 37%. According to the existing results on 5, 10, and 15-story reinforced concrete models located on Type-3 soil, records with characteristics such as fling-step and directivity create maximum drift values between floors more than far-fault earthquakes. The results indicated that in the case of seismic excitation modes under earthquake encompassing directivity or fling-step, the probability values of failure and failure possibility increasing rate values are much smaller than the corresponding values of far-fault earthquakes. However, in near-fault frame records, the probability of exceedance occurs at lower seismic intensities compared to far-fault records.

Keywords: Directivity, fling-step, fragility curve, IDA, inter story drift ratio.v

References:

[1] Bolt BA., “Seismic input motions for nonlinear structural analysis,” ISET journal of earthquake technology, 2004, 41(2):223-32.
[2] Chopra AK, Chintanapakdee C., “Comparing response of SDF systems to near‐fault and far‐fault earthquake motions in the context of spectral regions,” Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics., 2001, 30(12):1769-89.
[3] Kalkan E, Kunnath SK., “Effects of Fling step and forward directivity on seismic response of buildings.” Earthquake spectra. 2006;22(2):367-90.
[4] Elwood KJ, Moehle JP. “Drift capacity of reinforced concrete columns with light transverse reinforcement,” Earthquake Spectra. 2005;21(1):71-89.
[5] Marzban S, Banazadeh M, Azarbakht A. “Seismic performance of reinforced concrete shear wall frames considering soil–foundation–structure interaction,” The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings. 2014;23(4):302-18.
[6] Elwood KJ, Moehle JP. “Shake table tests and analytical studies on the gravity load collapse of reinforced concrete frames,” PEER report 2003/01. University of California, Berkeley. 2003.
[7] FEMA. Quantification of building seismic performance factors (FEMA P-695). Washington D.C.: Prepared by Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2009.
[8] Wu C, Yang Y-S, Hwang S, Loh C, editors. “Dynamic collapse of reinforced concrete columns,” Proceedings of the 9th US National and 10th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Toronto, ON, Canada; 2010.
[9] Wibowo A, Wilson JL, Lam N, Gad E. “Drift performance of lightly reinforced concrete columns. Engineering Structures,” 2014;59:522-35.
[10] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. “Direct estimation of seismic demand and capacity of multidegree-of-freedom systems through incremental dynamic analysis of single degree of freedom approximation,” Journal of Structural Engineering. 2005;131(4):589-99.
[11] BHRC. Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings: Standard no. 2800 (Fourth Revision) Iran Building and Housing Research Center; 2014.
[12] MHUD. Iranian National Building Code for Structural Loadings (part 6), Third Revision, Tehran (Iran). Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. 2013.
[13] MHUD. Iranian National Building Code (part 9): concrete structures design, Tehran (Iran). Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. 2009.
[14] Wu Cl, Kuo WW, Yang YS, Hwang SJ, Elwood KJ, Loh CH, et al. “Collapse of a nonductile concrete frame: Shaking table tests,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics. 2009;38(2):205-24.
[15] Elwood KJ. “Shake table tests and analytical studies on the gravity load collapse of reinforced concrete frames,” 2004.
[16] Yavari S, Kuo W, Elwood K, Wu C, Hwang S, Loh C, editors. “Analysis of Shake Table Collapse Tests for RC Frames,” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering; 2006.
[17] OpenSees. “Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation. University of California,” Berkeley, California: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. 2020.
[18] Peer. Peer Ground Motion Database: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center; 2015 Available from: http://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/spectras/8475/searches/4547/edit.
[19] Hazus-MH MR-5, Multi Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology: Earthquake Model. FEMA. Washington, D.C.: Department of Homeland security; 2003.
[20] FEMA 273. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Washington D.C.: Prepared by Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency; 1997.
[21] Kitada Y, Umeki Y. Near-field earthquakes observed recently in Japan (R). Proceedings of IAEA Workshop on Safety Significance of Near-field Earthquakes, Trieste, Italy, 2004: 28―40.
[22] Ghobarah A. Effect of near-fault earthquakes on North American nuclear design spectrum (J). Nuclear Engineering and Design, 2006, 236(18):1928―1936.
[23] G. P. Mavroeidis, G. Dong “Near-fault ground motions, and the response of elastic and inelastic single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems”: Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, International Association for Earthquake Engineering (IAEE)(2004).