Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 8, Issue 6, pp 1331–1350 | Cite as

Nonlinear dynamic response of r.c. framed structures subjected to near-fault ground motions

Original Research Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The nonlinear dynamic response of reinforced concrete (r.c.) framed buildings subjected to near-fault ground motions is studied to check the effectiveness of current code provisions with reference to study cases. Three-, six- and twelve-storey r.c. plane frames, representative of symmetric framed buildings, are designed according to the European seismic code (EC8), assuming medium and high ductility classes and stratigraphic profiles A (rock) and D (soft soil) in a high-risk seismic region. The nonlinear seismic analysis is performed using a step-by-step procedure; a bilinear model idealizes the behaviour of the r.c. frame members. Artificially generated motions (matching EC8 response spectra for subsoil classes A and D) and horizontal motions (recorded on rock- and soft soil-site at near-fault areas) are considered. The results indicate that near-fault ground motions may require a special consideration in the code, in particular when designing r.c. framed structures placed on a soft soil-site; particular attention should be paid to the design of the frame members of the lower storeys.

Keywords

Reinforced concrete frames Near-fault ground motions Aseismic design Seismic code Nonlinear seismic behaviour 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alavi B, Krawinkler H (2004) Behavior of moment-resisting frame structures subjected to near-fault ground motions. Earthq Eng Struc Dyn 33: 687–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson JC, Bertero VV (1987) Uncertainties in establishing design earthquakes. J Struc Eng 113(8): 1709–1725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arias A (1970) A measure of earthquake intensity. Seismic design for nuclear power plants, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  4. Baez JI, Miranda E (2000) Amplification factors to estimate inelastic displacement demands for the design of structures in the near-field. In: Proceedings of the 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, Auckland, paper No. 1561Google Scholar
  5. Bozorgnia Y, Bertero VV (1999) Improved shaking and damage parameters for post-earthquake applications. In: Proceedings of the SMIP99 seminar on utilization of strong motion data, San Francisco, pp 23–49Google Scholar
  6. Casciaro R (1975) Time evolutional analysis of nonlinear structures. Meccanica 3(X): 156–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Ramasco R (1993) The use of damage functionals in earthquake engineering: a comparison between different methods. Earthq Eng Struc Dyn 22: 855–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Decanini LD, Mollaioli F (1998) Formulation of elastic earthquake input energy spectra. Earthq Eng Struc Dyn 27(12): 1503–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eurocode 8 (2003) Design of structures for earthquake resistance–part 1: General Rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. C.E.N., European Committee for Standardisation, Final DraftGoogle Scholar
  10. Fajfar P, Vidic T, Fischinger M (1989) Seismic demand in medium- and long-period structures. Earthq Eng Struc Dyn 18(8): 1133–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hall JF, Heaton TH, Halling MW, Wald DJ (1995) Near-source ground motions and its effects on flexible buildings. Earthq Spectr 11: 569–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Iwan WD, Huang C-T, Guyader AC (2000) Important features of the response of inelastic structures to near-field ground motion. In: Proceedings of the 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, Auckland, paper No. 1740Google Scholar
  13. Makris N, Chang SP (2000) Effect of viscous, viscoplastic and friction damping on the response of seismic isolated structures. Earthq Eng Struc Dyn 29: 85–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mazza F, Vulcano A (2002) Effects of near-fault ground motions on the response of r.c. framed structures designed according to Eurocode 8. 12th European conference on earthquake engineering, London, U.K., paper 705Google Scholar
  15. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research center, PEER (1998) 1st PEER workshop on characterization of special source effects. University of California, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  16. Rega G, Vestroni F, Vulcano A (1990) Effectiveness of design prescriptions of CEB Seismic Code for satisfactory inelastic behaviour of reinforced concrete frames. Eur Earthq Eng 2: 17–26Google Scholar
  17. SIMQKE (1976) A program for artificial motion generation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering, Program distributed by NISEE/ComputerGoogle Scholar
  18. Somerville PG, Smith NF, Abrahamson NA (1996) Accounting for near-fault rupture directivity effects in the development of design ground motions. In: Proceedings of the 11th world conference on earthquake engineering, Acapulco, paper No. 711Google Scholar
  19. Uang C-M, Bertero VV (1990) Evaluation of seismic energy in structures. Earthq Eng Struc Dyn 19(1): 77–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Uniform Building Code (1997) International Conference of Building Officials. Whittier, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  21. Vulcano A (1981) Nonlinear seismic analysis of plane framed structures (in Italian). In: Proceedings 1° Convegno di Ingegneria Sismica in Italia, Udine, CISM (International Centre for Mechanical Sciences, Udine, Italy) Courses and Lectures, n. 271. Springer Verlag, Wien-New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Modellistica per l’IngegneriaUniversità della CalabriaRende (Cosenza)Italy

Personalised recommendations