Advertisement

Nonlinear dynamic response of a tall building to near-fault pulse-like ground motions

  • Necmettin GüneşEmail author
  • Zülfü Çınar Ulucan
Original Research
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

The objective of this study is to determine the effects of near-fault ground motions with large, medium and small pulse periods on a core-wall tall building. Three near-fault and one far-field ground motion sets, each with 11 different records, are rotated to the maximum pseudo-velocity spectrum directions. The mean transition periods of each set are obtained by the smoothed tripartite spectrum, which illustrates that the acceleration–sensitive region extends with increasing pulse duration. A 40-story core-wall building is subjected to 44 different record pairs, and the analysis results show that the ratio of pulse duration to first mode period (Tp/T1), governs the nonlinear response. It is demonstrated that higher mode effects increase while the first mode sensitive region moves away from the second mode sensitive region. The distribution profiles of the story drift, tension strain, and beam rotation demands along the height of the building are substantially different depending on the Tp/T1 ratio. In the large and medium pulses records, the core-wall reaches the flexural yielding capacity above the podium level, and this phenomenon increases the story drift ratio and flexural beam rotation demands depending on the displacement demands at the end of the acceleration-sensitive region. On the contrary, near-fault with small pulses and far-field ground motions induce yielding of core-wall at upper stories due to higher mode effects. Thus, post-yield story shear force distributions significantly change compared to the large and medium pulses ground motions.

Keywords

Near-fault ground motions Pulse period Nonlinear dynamic analysis Higher mode effects Tall buildings 

Notes

References

  1. ACI 318-14 (2014) Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary. American Concrete Institute, Farmington HillsGoogle Scholar
  2. Akkar S, Gülkan P (2003) A Near-fault design spectrum and its drift limits. In: Fourth international conference on seismology and earthquake engineering. International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, TehranGoogle Scholar
  3. Akkar S, Yazgan U, Gülkan P (2005) Drift estimates in frame buildings subjected to near-fault ground motions. ASCE J Struct Eng 131(7):1014–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alavi B, Krawinkler H (2000) Consideration of near-fault ground motion effects in seismic design. In: 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  5. Alavi B, Krawinkler H (2001) Effects of near-fault ground motions on frame structures. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Stanford. Report No: 138Google Scholar
  6. Alavi B, Krawinkler H (2004) Behavior of moment-resisting frame structures subjected to near-fault ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 33:687–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ASCE, SEI 7–10 (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, RestonGoogle Scholar
  8. ASCE, SEI 41-13 (2013) Seismic Rehabilitation Standards Committee. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers, RestonGoogle Scholar
  9. Baker JW (2010) Conditional mean spectrum: tool for ground-motion selection. J Struct Eng 137(3):322–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baker JW, Cornell CA (2006) Vector-Valued Ground Motion Intensity Measures for Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis. PEER Report No: 08Google Scholar
  11. Baker JW, Cornell CA (2007) A vector-valued measures for pulse-like near-fault ground motions. Engineering Structure 30:1048–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Basone F, Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F, Muscolino G (2017) Incremental dynamic based fragility assessment of reinforced concrete structures: stationary versus non-stationary artificial ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 103:105–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Beyer K, Bommer JJ (2006) Relationships between median values and between aleatory variabilities for different definitions of the horizontal component of motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:1512–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bray JD, Rodriguez-Marek A (2004) Characterization of forward-directivity ground motions in the near-fault region. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24:815–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carvalho G, Bento R, Bhatt C (2013) Nonlinear static and dynamics analyses of reinforced concrete buildings-comparison of different modeling approaches. Earthq Struct 4(5):451–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. CEN (2004) Eurocode 8–Earthquake resistant design of structures. General rules–specific rules for various materials and elements. Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  17. Champion C, Liel A (2012) The effect of near-fault directivity on building seismic collapse risk. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 41(10):1391–1409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chopra AK, Chintanapakdee C (2001) Comparing response of SDF systems to near-fault and far-fault earthquake motions in the context of spectral regions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 30:1769–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cork TG, Kim JH, Mavroeidis GP, Kim JK, Halldorsson B, Papageorgiou AS (2016) Effects of tectonic regime and soil conditions on the pulse period of near-fault ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 80:102–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. CSI (2016a) ETABS, Extended 3D Analysis of Building Systems Software, Nonlinear Version 9.7.1. Computers and Structures, Inc, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  21. CSI (2016b) PERFORM-3D, nonlinear analysis and performance assessment for 3D structures, version 6. Computers and Structures Inc, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  22. Değer ZT, Yang TY, Wallace JW, Moehle J (2014) Seismic performance of reinforced concrete core wall buildings with and without moment resisting frames. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 24:477–490.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1175 Google Scholar
  23. Dezhdar E, Adebar P (2012) Estimating seismic demands on high-rise concrete shear wall buildings. In: 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  24. Ghodsi T, Ruiz JAF (2010) Pacific earthquake engineering research/seismic safety commission tall building design case study 2. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 256:197–256Google Scholar
  25. Görgülü O, Taskin B (2015) Numerical simulation of RC infill walls under cyclic loading and calibration with widely used hysteretic models and experiments. Bull Earthq Eng 13:2591–2610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haselton CB, Liel AB, Taylor Lange S, Deierlein GG (2008) Beam-column element model calibrated for predicting flexural response leading to global collapse of RC frame buildings, PEER Report 2007/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  27. Hayden C, Bray J, Abrahamson N, Acevedo-Cabrera AL (2012) Selection of near-fault pulse motions for use in design. In: 5th international world conference on earthquake engineering, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  28. Huang YN, Whittaker AS, Luco N (2008) Maximum spectral demands in the near-fault region. Earthq Spectra 24:319–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kalkan E, Kunnath SK (2006) Effects of fling step and forward directivity on seismic response of building. Earthq Spectra 22:367–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kazaz İ, Gülkan P (2016) Dynamic shear force amplification in regular frame–wall systems. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 25:112–135.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tal CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. LATBSDC (2017) An alternative procedure for seismic analysis and design of tall buildings located in the Los Angeles region. Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  32. Malhotra PK (1999) Response of buildings to near-field pulse-like ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28:1309–1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress–strain model for confined concrete. ASCE J Struct Eng 114:1804–1826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mehmood T, Warnitchal P, Ahmed M, Qureshi MI (2017) Alternative approach to compute shear amplification in high-rise reinforced concrete core wall buildings using uncoupled modal response history analysis procedure. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 26:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Naish D, Wallace JW, Fry JA, Klemencic R (2009) Experimental evaluation and analytical modeling of ACI 318-05/08 reinforced concrete coupling beams subjected to reversed cyclic loading. UCLA – SGEL 6Google Scholar
  36. NIST (2011) Selecting and scaling earthquake ground motions for performing response-history analyses. NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture for NIST, GaithersburgGoogle Scholar
  37. NIST (2017) Guidelines for nonlinear structural analysis for design of buildings, part IIb—concrete moment frames, under preparation by Applied Technology Council, ATC Project 114, pending publicationGoogle Scholar
  38. NZS (2006) NZS 3101: part1-concrete structures standard, part- 2 commentary on the design of concrete structures. New Zealand Standards, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  39. Orakçal K, Wallace JW (2006) Flexural modeling of reinforced concrete walls-experimental verification. ACI Struct J 103(2):196–206Google Scholar
  40. Panagiotou M, Restrepo JI (2009) Dual-plastic hinge design concept for reducing higher-mode effects on high-rise cantilever wall buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38:1359–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. PEER (2010) Technical report for the PEER ground motions database web applicationGoogle Scholar
  42. PEER Ground Motion Database (2017) Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. University of California, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  43. PEER/ATC (2010) Modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings (PEER/ATC 72-1). Applied Technology Council, Redwood City- Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  44. PEER/TBI (2010) Guidelines for performance-based seismic design of tall buildings. PEER Report 2010/05. The TBI Guidelines Working Group, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  45. Rad BR, Adebar P (2008) Dynamic shear amplification. In: High-rise concrete walls: effect of multiple flexural hinges and shear cracking. The 14 the world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  46. Rejec K, Isokovic T, Fischiner M (2013) Seismic shear force magnification in RC cantilever structural walls, designed according to Eurocode 8. Bull Earthq Eng 10:567–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rupakhety R, Sigurdsson SU, Papageorgiou AS (2011) Quantification of ground-motion parameters and response spectrum in the near-fault region. Bull Earthq Eng 9:893–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rutenberg A (2013) Seismic shear forces on RC walls: review and bibliography. Bull Earthq Eng 11:1727–1751.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9464-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shahi SK, Baker JW (2011) Regression models for predicting the probability of near-fault earthquake ground motion pulses, and their period. In: 11th International conference on applications of statistics and probability in Civil Engineering, Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  50. Shahi SK, Baker JW (2014a) NGA-West2 models for ground motion directionality. Earthq Spectra 30:1285–1300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shahi S, Baker JW (2014b) An empirically calibrated framework for including the effects of near-fault directivity in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101:742–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Somerville PG (2003) Magnitude scaling of the near-fault rupture directivity pulse. Phys Earth Planet Inter 137:201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Somerville PG, Smith N, Graves R, Abrahamson N (1997) Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity. Seismol Res Lett 68(1):199–222.  https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.68.1.199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stewart JP, Abrahamson NA, Atkinson GM, Baker J, Boore DM, Bozorgnia Y, Campbell KW, Comartin CD, Idriss IM, Lew M, Mehrain M, Moehle JP, Naeim F, Sabol TA (2011) Representation of bi-directional ground motions for design spectra in building codes. Earthq Spectra 27:927–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. TEC (2018) Turkish Earthquake Code. Disaster and Emergency Management Authority, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  56. Thomsen JH, Wallace JW (2004) Displacement-based design of slender reinforced concrete structural walls—experimental verification. ASCE J Struct Eng 130(4):618–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vuran E, Aydınoğlu MN (2016) Capacity and ductility demand estimation procedures for preliminary design of coupled core wall systems of tall buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 14:721–745.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9853-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wallace JW, Naish D, Fry JA, Klemencic R (2009) RC core walls–testing and modeling of coupling beams. PEER Center Annual MeetingGoogle Scholar
  59. Watson-Lamprey J, Boore DM (2007) Beyond SaGMRotI: conversion to SaArb, SaSN, and SaMaxRot. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97(5):1511–1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ArchitectureCumhuriyet UniversitySivasTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringFırat UniversityElazığTurkey

Personalised recommendations