Advertisement

A 3-dimensional perspective for inter-storey drift, ductility and damage distributions in plan-irregular RC buildings considering seismic orientation effect

  • Nader Amarloo
  • Ali R. EmamiEmail author
Original Research

Abstract

Current seismic design of buildings is mostly based on applying earthquake excitation along principal (reference) axes of the building plan and response assessment on the same axes. However there is a challenge, whether or not the seismic excitation is applied on the principal axes, critical responses can take place on non-principal directions. The compound of this challenge with inherent response complexity in nonlinear behaviour of plan-irregular buildings leads to critical responses whose estimation is complicated. Current study proposes a new approach to address these challenges by presenting a 3-dimensional perspective for drift, ductility and damage indices. The concept of spatial response distributions is developed wherein vertical and planar response variations can be assessed. 4-, 8- and 12-storey reinforced concrete moment-frame structures with a typical L-shaped plan are employed in multi-direction pushover and nonlinear response history analyses, using 60 record component pairs of near-field and far-field earthquakes. Based on nonlinear regression analysis, several combination rules and amplification factors are derived for the critical responses polarized on non-principal directions at each storey level. A substantial increase (20%-to-60%) in the responses is observed; it depends on seismic orientation scheme, vertical distribution and planar direction of interest, and response definition.

Keywords

Plan-irregularity Pushover Response history Damage index Ductility Seismic orientation 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10518_2019_595_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (442 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 442 kb)
10518_2019_595_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (478 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 477 kb)
10518_2019_595_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (618 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 618 kb)
10518_2019_595_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (265 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (PDF 264 kb)
10518_2019_595_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (312 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (PDF 312 kb)

References

  1. ACI (2014) Building Code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318M-14) and commentary. American Concrete Institute, Farmington HillsGoogle Scholar
  2. Ancheta TR, Darragh J, Stewart E et al (2013) PEER NGA-West2 database. Technical Report 2013/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  3. Archila M (2011) Nonlinear response of high-rise buildings: effect of directionality of ground motions. M.Sc. thesis, University of British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  4. Archila M, Ventura CE, Liam Finn WD (2017) New insights on effects of directionality and duration of near-field ground motions on seismic response of tall buildings. Struct Design Tall Spec Build 26:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ASCE (2016) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. (ASCE/SEI 7-16). American Society of Civil Engineers, RestonGoogle Scholar
  6. ASCE (2017) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. (ASCE/SEI 41-17). American Society of Civil Engineers, RestonGoogle Scholar
  7. Athanatopoulou AM (2005) Critical orientation of three correlated seismic components. Eng Struct 27:301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baker JW (2007) Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97:1486–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beiraghi H, Kheyroddin A, Kafi MA (2016) Forward directivity near-fault and far-fault ground motion effects on the behavior of reinforced concrete wall tall buildings with one and more plastic hinges. Struct Design Tall Spec Build 25:519–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bommer JJ, Martinez-Pereira A (1999) The effective duration of earthquake strong motion. J Earthq Eng 3:127–172Google Scholar
  11. Brown BM (2014) Lateral loads on reentrant corner structures. M.Sc. thesis, Washington State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  12. Chopra AK (2012) Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering, 4th edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  13. Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Ramasco R (1993) The use of damage functionals in earthquake engineering: a comparison between different methods. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 22:855–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Emami AR, Halabian AM (2015) Spatial distribution of ductility demand and damage index in 3D RC frame structures considering directionality effects. Struct Design Tall Spec Build 24:941–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Emami AR, Halabian AM (2018) Damage index distributions in RC dual lateral load-resistant multi-story buildings considering SSI under bidirectional earthquakes. J Earthq Tsunami 12:1850004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. FEMA (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings: FEMA 356. Federal Emergency Management Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  17. FEMA (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors: FEMA P695 (ATC-63 Project). Federal Emergency Management Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  18. Fernandez-Davila I, Cominetti S, Cruz EF (2000) Considering the bi-directional effects and the seismic angle variations in building design. In: Proceedings of the 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  19. Ghobarah A, Abou-elfath H, Biddah A (1999) Response-based damage assessment of structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28:79–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ghodsi T, Ruiz JF, Massie C et al (2010) Pacific earthquake engineering research/seismic safety commission tall building design case study. Struct Des Tall Special Build 19:197–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Halabian A, Emami A (2014) Effect of foundation flexibility on inelastic response of 3D R/C frame structures under near fault ground motions. Struct Build ICE 167:123–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kalkan E, Kunnath SK (2007) Assessment of current nonlinear static procedures for seismic evaluation of buildings. Eng Struct 29:305–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kalkan E, Reyes JC (2015) Significance of rotating ground motions on behavior of symmetric- and asymmetric-plan structures: part 2. Multi-story structures. Earthq Spectra 31:1613–1628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kappos AJ (1997) Seismic damage indices for RC buildings: evaluation of concepts and procedures. Prog Struct Eng Mater 1:78–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kostinakis KG, Athanatopoulou AM, Avramidis IE (2013) Evaluation of inelastic response of 3D single-story R/C frames under bi-directional excitation using different orientation schemes. Bull Earthq Eng 11:637–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lagaros ND (2010) Multicomponent incremental dynamic analysis considering variable incident angle. Struct Infrastruct Eng 6:77–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li KN (2002) CANNY (version CO2): three-dimensional nonlinear dynamic structural analysis computer program package. Canny Consultants PTE Ltd, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  28. Magliulo G, Maddaloni G, Petrone C (2014) Influence of earthquake direction on the seismic response of irregular plan RC frame buildings. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 13:243–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Malhotra PK (1999) Response of buildings to near-field pulse-like ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28:1309–1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. ASCE J Struct Eng 114:1804–1826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marino I, Petti L (2011) Seismic assessment of asymmetric structures behaviour by using static non-linear analysis. J Civ Eng Archit 5:402–411Google Scholar
  32. Mavronicola EA, Polycarpou PC, Komodromos P (2017) Spatial seismic modeling of base-isolated buildings pounding against moat walls: effects of ground motion directionality and mass eccentricity. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46:1161–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mazza F (2014) Modelling and nonlinear static analysis of reinforced concrete framed buildings irregular in plan. Eng Struct 80:98–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mazza F (2015) Nonlinear incremental analysis of fire-damaged r.c. base-isolated structures subjected to near-fault ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 77:192–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mazza F (2018) Seismic demand of base-isolated irregular structures subjected to pulse-type earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 108:111–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mazza F, Mazza M (2012) Nonlinear modeling and analysis of R.C. framed buildings located in a near-fault area. Open Constr Build Technol J 6:346–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Menun C, Der Kiureghian A (1998) A replacement for the 30%, 40%, and SRSS rules for multicomponent seismic analysis. Earthq Spectra 14:153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mitropoulou CC, Lagaros ND (2016) Critical incident angle for the minimum cost design of low, mid and high-rise steel and reinforced concrete-composite buildings. Int J Optim Civil Eng 6:135–158Google Scholar
  39. Moehle J, Mahin S, Bozorgnia Y, et al (2010) Modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings: Task 7 report for the tall buildings initiative. PEER Report 2010/111, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  40. Moehle J, Bozorgnia Y, Jayaram N et al (2011) Case studies of the seismic performance of tall buildings designed by alternative means, Task 12 Report for the Tall Buildings Initiative. Report No2011/05, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  41. Morfidis K, Kostinakis K, Karakostas C (2013) Comparative evaluation of different damage measures for reinforced concrete building considering variable incident angles. In: Proceeding of the 4th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, Kos Island, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  42. Newmark NM (1959) A method for computation for structural dynamics. ASCE J Eng Mech Div 85:67–94Google Scholar
  43. Orakcal K, Wallace JW (2006) Flexural modeling of reinforced concrete walls model calibration. ACI Struct J 103:96–206Google Scholar
  44. Penzien J, Watabe M (1975) Characteristics of 3-D earthquake ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 3:365–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Popov EP, Bertero VV, Krawinkler H (1972) Cyclic behavior of three reinforced concrete flexural members with High Shear. Report No. EERC 72-5, Earthquake Engineering Research Center Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  46. Rigato AB, Medina RA (2007) Influence of angle of incidence on seismic demands for inelastic single-storey structures subjected to bi-directional ground motions. Eng Struct 29:2593–2601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rossetto T (2004) Vulnerability curves for the seismic assessment of reinforced concrete building populations. Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College, University of LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Salajegheh P, Shojaee S, Salajegheh E et al (2014) Reliability-based seismic assessment of asymmetric multi-story buildings with RC shear walls. Asian J Civ Eng (BHRC) 15:155–168Google Scholar
  49. SeismoSoft (2011) SeismoStruct-v5.2.2.: a computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures. SeismoSoft (Earthquake Engineering Software Solutions), Pavia. www.seismosoft.com. Accessed 30 June 2016
  50. Shahi SK, Baker JW (2014) An efficient algorithm to identify strong-velocity pulses in multicomponent ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104:2456–2466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smeby W, Der Kiureghian A (1985) Modal combination rules for multi-component earthquake excitation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 13:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Somerville PG, Smith NF, Graves RW (1997) Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity. Seismol Res Lett 68:199–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tso WK, Zhu TJ (1992) Design of torsionally unbalanced structural systems based on code provisions I: ductility demand. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 21:609–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tsourekas AG, Athanatopoulou AM (2013) Evaluation of existing combination rules for the effects caused by three spatial components of an earthquake. KSCE J Civ Eng 17:1728–1739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vargas YF, Pujades LG, Barbat AH et al (2013) Risk assessment of reinforced concrete buildings considering the earthquake directionality effects. In: Proceedings of 4th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, Kos Island, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  56. Wilson EL, Suharwardy I, Habibullah A (1995) A clarification of the orthogonal effects in a three-dimensional seismic analysis. Earthq Spectra 11:659–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Isfahan (Khorasgan) BranchIslamic Azad UniversityIsfahanIran

Personalised recommendations