diseño sismico norma

© All Rights Reserved

3 tayangan

diseño sismico norma

© All Rights Reserved

- Building Safer Structures Arra
- Design for Blast and Seismic.pdf
- muk5 - Copy
- Seismic Code Requirements for NonStructural Components Part A
- Fragility & ShakeMaps
- vivek FP
- University Concrete Research Papers
- 3D Time History Analysis of RC Structures Versus Common Methodst
- 1-s2.0-S014102960600201X-main
- SeismicGuidelines_WaterPipelines
- SDM Example 3 Steel SMF.pdf
- 03 Energia
- Contributions to the Chilean Code for Seismic Design of Buildings with Energy Dissipation Devices WCEE2012_5761
- 03_sc-037_f-ip
- 617-2538-1-PB
- 0deec52ea15fe76630000000
- Paper 55
- 45(4)0137
- Assessing Earthquake Risk in the UAE
- S02-SI-en

Anda di halaman 1dari 12

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

concrete buildings

Maria Hatzivassiliou a, George D. Hatzigeorgiou b,n

a

Freelance consulting engineer, Thessaloniki, Greece

b

School of Science and Technology, Hellenic Open University, Patras, Greece

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Repeated earthquakes strongly affect the inelastic response of structures and cause in many cases more

Received 21 January 2015 adverse effects in comparison with the corresponding single ground motions, such as the accumulation

Accepted 7 February 2015 of structural and non-structural damage as well as the increment of deformation demands. Numerous

Available online 25 February 2015

research studies have been recently published in the pertinent literature to investigate this phenomenon

Keywords: but most of them are limited either to single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems or to two-dimensional

Three-dimensional seismic analysis multi-degree-of freedom (2-D MDOF) systems such as multi-storey planar framed structures. With

Reinforced concrete buildings special regard to reinforced concrete (RC) buildings, this study investigates for the ﬁrst time the inelastic

Multiple earthquakes response of three-dimensional (3-D) structures subjected to repeated earthquakes. More speciﬁcally,

two three-storey and two ﬁve-storey RC buildings, which are regular and irregular along their height, are

examined under ﬁve real strong multiple earthquakes where their two horizontal components as well as

the vertical one are taken into account. The investigation focuses on the examination of the maximum

displacements, maximum residual displacements, maximum interstorey drift ratio, maximum residual

interstorey drift ratio, damage indices and ductility demands. Finally, the building structures under

consideration are analyzed for different siting conﬁgurations to investigate the effect of earthquake

direction incident. It is concluded that the multiplicity of earthquakes should be taken into account for

the reliable seismic design of reinforced concrete structures.

& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

effects of repeated earthquake phenomena on single-degree-of-

Seismic sequences take place frequently at many regions world- freedom (SDOF) systems. One can mention the works of Amadio

wide. As a consequence, the accumulated strains at active seismic et al. [1] and Luco et al. [2] where the effects of repeated earthquakes

faults are not released outright at the ﬁrst rupture, but sequential on nonlinear SDOF systems were examined and quantiﬁed. Further-

ruptures take place leading to repeated earthquakes. In many cases, more, Hatzigeorgiou and Beskos [3] proposed appropriate inelastic

there is a signiﬁcant damage accumulation as a result of multiplicity displacement ratios for the case of seismic sequences. Additionally,

of earthquakes and frequently, due to lack of time between succes- Hatzigeorgiou [4–6] studied the ductility demands and behavior

sive seismic events, any rehabilitation process seems to be unfeasible. factors for nonlinear SDOF systems subjected to multiple near-fault

There are numerous examples of buildings worldwide where the and far-ﬁeld earthquakes. Moustafa and Takewaki [7] and Takewaki

structural damage has been accumulated due to multiple earth- et al. [8] examined simple stochastic models representing repeated

quakes. For example, one can mention the recent Christchurch (NZ) seismic sequences. In addition, various research studies investigated

seismic sequence where the Canterbury Television and the Pyne the effects of multiple earthquakes on multi-degree of freedom

Gould Corp. buildings were damaged due to the ﬁrst strong earth- (MDOF) systems. One can mention here the works of Fragiacomo

quake (4 Sept. 2010) and then collapsed during the second successive et al. [9], Li and Ellingwood [10], Hatzigeorgiou and Liolios [11] and

strong ground motion (22 Feb. 2011). Although the recognized Ruiz-Garcia and Negrete-Manriquez [12], which have examined steel

observable fact for multiple earthquakes, the modern seismic design framed structures and Loulelis et al. [13], Faisal et al. [14], Efraimia-

codes have not considered adequately this phenomenon and they dou et al. [15], Di Sarno [16] and Abdelnaby and Elnashai [17] which

typically focus on the single and rare ‘design earthquake’. have focused on multi-storey reinforced concrete frames. It is worth

noticing that all these studies, i.e., Refs [9–17], have been limited to

two-dimensional/planar structures while according to the best of the

n

Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 30 2610 367769 authors' knowledge, there is not research work that has examined

E-mail address: hatzigeorgiou@eap.gr (G.D. Hatzigeorgiou). the effects of repeated earthquakes on three-dimensional reinforced

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.02.005

0267-7261/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

78 M. Hatzivassiliou, G.D. Hatzigeorgiou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 72 (2015) 77–88

Z

Y

X

Z

Y

X

Z

Y

X

efﬁcient methodology for the inelastic analysis of three-dimensional

RC buildings under repeated earthquakes is apparent.

This study investigates the behavior of three-dimensional RC

structures under multiple earthquakes. For this objective, the non-

linear dynamic response of four three-dimensional RC buildings

under ﬁve real seismic sequences is investigated. These multiple

earthquakes have been recorded by the same station and in a short

period of time, up to three days. The time-history responses of

building structures under consideration subjected to the aforemen-

tioned seismic sequences are computed using Ruaumoko structural

analysis program [18]. The study focuses on the most critical

structural parameters such as the structural damage, maximum

displacements, permanent displacements and interstorey drift ratios.

Additionally, the building structures under consideration have been Z

analyzed for different siting conﬁgurations to examine the effect of Y

earthquake direction incident. Examining the results of this study,

X

very important conclusions and outcomes are found.

2. Description of structures and modeling assumptions

while the other two frames have 5 storeys and they are also

2.1. Description of structures regular and irregular along their height. The examined 3- and

5-storey buildings have 2 equal bays in each direction (x and y)

In this research study, four three-dimensional buildings are with total length equal to 10.40 m. The 3-storey irregular building

investigated. The ﬁrst two frames have 3 storeys, where the ﬁrst has a setback on the third ﬂoor and the 5-storey irregular building

one is regular and the second one is irregular along its height, has setbacks on its fourth and ﬁfth ﬂoor. Typical ﬂoor-to-ﬂoor

M. Hatzivassiliou, G.D. Hatzigeorgiou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 72 (2015) 77–88 79

height is equal to 3.0 m. The columns have square sections value of behavior factor should be reduced by 20%, as clariﬁed by the

and their sectional dimension for the whole set of buildings are provisions of EC8 [21]. Therefore, structures which are not regular in

40 40 cm, 50 50 cm and 60 60 cm. The dimensions (section elevation and examined herein such as structures in Figs. 2 and 4,

width/height) of beams for the 3- and 5-storey regular buildings have q¼0.8 3.6¼2.88.

are 25 50 cm and of beams for the 3- and 5-storey irregular

buildings are 25 60 cm, 25 55 cm and 25 50 cm. The 3-D 2.2. Nonlinear structural behavior

models of the structures are shown in Figs. 1–4, which also depict

the numbering of nodes and elements. The behavior of a well-designed RC member under cyclic loading

The steel reinforcement selection and placement are shown in can be adequately described by a hysteretic model without pinching.

Figs. 5–7, where due to lack of space, only the 3-storey irregular In this work, the hysteresis model of Takeda is adopted (see Fig. 8),

building is illustrated. which is available in the library of Ruaumoko program [18], assuming

The structures are made by reinforced concrete with concrete grade the following parameters: unloading parameter α ¼0.25 for beams

C20/25 and longitudinal and transverse reinforcements with grade and α ¼0.50 for columns, reloading parameter β ¼ 0 both for columns

B500C. The structures are analyzed and designed for earthquake loads and for beams, and post-yield stiffness ratio r¼ 0.01 for all structural

(E) with peak ground acceleration PGA¼ 0.24 g and soil class B, using members. Ruaumoko program [18] has adopted the concentrated

StereoSTATIKA structural analysis program [19], according to Euro- plasticity approach where the inelastic response results are depended

codes EC2 [20] and EC8 [21]. The structural analysis and design takes on the plastic hinge length, lph. This length deﬁne the relation between

into account dead loads, G, live loads, Q, earthquake loads, E, as well as rotation and the curvature, and without lost of generality, it is assumed

any probable loading combination according to the aforementioned that for each member is equal to the half of its section's height H (or

structural codes. The combination coefﬁcient ψ of live load Q is taken width B in perpendicular direction), i.e., lph ¼ H/2 (or lph ¼B/2) [11].

equal to 0.3 in this study. The selection of steel longitudinal rebars

considers the concept of week beams-strong columns of EC8 [21], i.e.,

2.3. Other modeling assumptions

X X

M Rc Z 1:3 M Rb ð1Þ

A three dimensional model of each structure is created in

P P

where M Rc and M Rb are the sum of the resistance moments of RUAUMOKO [18] to perform nonlinear dynamic analysis. The Ray-

columns and beams at every beam–column joint, respectively. leigh approach for damping is used where the damping matrix can

It should be noted that the behavior factor for concrete buildings be expressed as a linear combination of mass and stiffness matrices

with regular elevations is q¼3.6 while for irregular buildings, the of the structures [22]. Columns and beams are modeled with lumped

80 M. Hatzivassiliou, G.D. Hatzigeorgiou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 72 (2015) 77–88

M. Hatzivassiliou, G.D. Hatzigeorgiou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 72 (2015) 77–88 81

plasticity elements by deﬁning plastic hinges at both ends of them, as the aforementioned siting rotation. For example, Fig. 9 depicts the

mentioned above. It is assumed that, due to diaphragm action of 4 different conﬁgurations under consideration for the 3-storey

concrete slabs, beams cannot deform along their axis. Furthermore, irregular building while similar representation can be shown for

the expected cracking of a concrete section can be taken into account the 5-storey irregular building.

considering its effective (reduced) moment of inertia, Ieff, i.e., for

beams Ieff ¼ 0.35Ig and for columns Ieff ¼0.60Ig [11], where Ig is the

moment of inertia of the gross section. It should be noted that the 3. Seismic input

probable ﬂexibility of soil is ignored, assuming ﬁxed base conditions.

Finally, the XTRACT program [23] is used for the section modeling, This work examines ﬁve real seismic sequences, which are namely:

i.e., to evaluate the moment-curvature response. Mammoth Lakes (May 1980 – 5 single seismic events), Chalfant Valley

(July 1986 – 2 single seismic events), Coalinga (July 1983 – 2 single

seismic events), Imperial Valley (October 1979 – 2 single seismic

2.4. The effect of earthquake direction incident events) and Whittier Narrows (October 1987 – 2 single seismic events).

Each earthquake consists of three components, i.e., the two hor-

Regarding to siting, four different cases are examined for each izontal records and the vertical one. For the earthquakes under

irregular building to investigate the effect of earthquake direction consideration, the horizontal component with the higher peak ground

incident. More speciﬁcally, four different angles between the princi- acceleration (PGA) is set as Component (1) while the other one as

pal axes of the structures (see global coordinates system XYZ in Component (2). Furthermore, the vertical axis corresponds to Compo-

Figs. 1–4) and the recorded components of the earthquake excitations nent (3). The complete list of these seismic events is shown in Table 1

are investigated: a) 01, b) 901, c) 1801, and d) 2701. The regular and the corresponding records have been downloaded from the strong

buildings, due to their symmetry in X–Y plane, are analyzed without motion database of the Paciﬁc Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER)

Table 2

Scaling factors.

Lakes Valley Valley Narrows

regular

3-storey 1.189 0.641 0.454 0.908 1.564

irreg.

5-storey 1.816 0.744 1.051 1.262 1.230

regular

5-storey 1.212 0.572 0.886 1.293 1.852

irreg.

Fig. 8. The modiﬁed Takeda hysteresis model [18].

Table 1

Seismic input data – real seismic sequences.

No. Seismic sequence Station Date (time) Code name Recorded PGA (g)

1980/05/25 (16:49) MA2 0.178

1980/05/25 (19:44) MA3 0.219

1980/05/25 (20:35) MA4 0.432

1980/05/27 (14:51) MA5 0.316

2 Chalfant Valley 54428 Zack Brothers Ranch 1986/07/20 (14:29) CH1 0.285

1986/07/21 (14:42) CH2 0.447

3 Coalinga 46T04 CHP 1983/07/22 (02:39) CO1 0.605

1983/07/25 (22:31) CO2 0.733

4 Imperial Valley 5055 Holtville P.O. 1979/10/15 (23:16) IM1 0.253

1979/10/15 (23:19) IM2 0.211

5 Whittier Narrows 24401 San Marino 1987/10/01 (14:42) WI1 0.204

1987/10/04 (10:59) WI2 0.212

82 M. Hatzivassiliou, G.D. Hatzigeorgiou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 72 (2015) 77–88

M. Hatzivassiliou, G.D. Hatzigeorgiou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 72 (2015) 77–88 83

Center [24]. This table also provides with the code names of ground earthquakes and seismic sequences. Furthermore, every irregular

motions examined herein, e.g., CO1, CO2 and COT correspond to the ﬁrst structure has been analyzed for all the examined siting conﬁgurations

and second single (individual) Coalinga seismic events as well as their that have been presented in Section 2.4.

seismic sequence, respectively (i.e., COT¼CO1þCO2, etc.). For compat-

ibility reasons between the seismic analysis and seismic design [25], the

aforementioned seismic events have been appropriately scaled to give, 4. Selected results

for the fundamental period of each structure, identical spectral accel-

eration (for Component (1)) with the design spectrum of EC8 [20]. Thus, This section presents selected results that have to do with the

all these ground motions are multiplied by appropriate factors, which inelastic behavior of the examined RC three-dimensional buildings

are shown in Table 2. It is evident that these factors ranged between under repeated earthquakes. The section focuses on damage indices,

0.454–2.939 (i.e., about 0.5–3.0). These values can be characterized as maximum horizontal displacements, interstorey drift ratios, residual

rational and acceptable according to the basic principles of engineering horizontal displacements, residual interstorey drift ratios and ductility

seismology, which do not allow extreme (very high or very low) scale demands. Finally, the time-history of horizontal displacements for the

factors to multiply the seismic records [26]. Every sequential ground top storey of the structures is also examined.

motion from the PEER database [24] is constructed as a unique seismic

record (serial array) where between two successive seismic events a 4.1. Structural damage

time gap of one hundred seconds is applied which has zero ordinates of

ground acceleration. This gap is enough to calm down the motion of In order to quantify the structural damage of the reinforced

any building due to damping. Every structure is analyzed both for single concrete structures under investigation, the Park-Ang [27] damage

Mammoth Lakes earthquakes / 3-storey reg. bldg (000) Mammoth Lakes earthquakes / 3-storey irreg. bldg (180)

0.1 0. 1

2 2

0. 1 0. 1

p. (m)

0

. (m)

0

0.0 0.0

8 8

Max. X- disp

is

0. 0 0.0

Max. Y-d

6 6

0.0 0. 0

4 4

0.0 0.0

2 2

0 0

M .00 M .00

3 MA AT 3 MA AT

MA 5 MA 5

2 MA 4 2

St St MA 4

ore MA 3 or MA 3

y 1 MA 2 ey 1 2

1 MA

1

Mammoth Lakes earthquakes / 5-storey reg. bldg (000) Mammoth Lakes earthquakes / 5-storey irreg. bldg (090) Chalfant Valley earthquakes / 3-storey irreg. bldg (000)

0. 0

5

0.

0. 12

12 0.0

. (m)

0. 4

0. 10

(m)

10 0.0

Max. X- disp

(m)

0. 3

0. 08

sp.

08

p.

0. 0. 0

Max. Y- di

06 2

Ma x. Y-d is

0.

06 0.

5 04 0.0

0. 1

5 04 4 0.

02

0. 0.0

4 02 3 0. CH 0

3

Sto

00 T

MA

3 0. 2

MA

00

rey

Sto

CH

T

MA

St 2

MA

2 1 or 2

MA

4

rey

MA

A3

ey

T

MA

MA

5

MA

CH

2

1 1

MA

1

1

3

MA

2

1

Chalfant Valley earthquakes / 3-storey irreg. bldg (090) Chalfant Valley earthquakes / 3-storey irreg. bldg (180) Imperial Valley earthquakes / 3-storey reg. bldg (000)

0. 0 0. 0

0.0 5 8

5 0. 0

7

. (m)

0.0 0. 0 0. 0

(m)

4 6

(m)

4

Max. Y-disp

0. 0

5

.

0. 0

Max. X-disp.

0 .0

Max. X- disp

3 0.0

3 4

0.0

0. 0 3

0.0 2 0. 0

2 2

0.0

0.0 0.0 1

1 1 0.0

0

0.0 3 IM

0.0 0 T

3 CH 0 3 CH

T 2 IM

T St 2

CH or

St 2 CH St 2 ey 1 IM

ore 2 or 2 1

ey

y CH 1 CH

1 1 1

Fig. 11. Maximum horizontal displacements: single seismic events vs. seismic sequences.

84 M. Hatzivassiliou, G.D. Hatzigeorgiou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 72 (2015) 77–88

Mammoth Lakes earthquakes / 5-storey reg. bldg (000) Mammoth Lakes earthquakes / 5-storey irreg. bldg (000)

0. 0

6

disp. (m)

0. 0.0

06 5

)

s. d isp. (m

0. 0. 0

05 4

.

Max. Y-Res

0. 0.0

04 3

0. 0.0

03 2

Max. Y-Re

0. 0

0. 1

5 02 0

0. 5 MA . 00

4 01 MA T

4 MA 5

3 0.

00 3 MA 4

Sto

MA

St

2 or MA 3

MA

2

rey

MA

ey

T

2

MA

MA

5

1 1

4

MA

1

3

MA

2

1

Coalinga earthquakes / 5-storey reg. bldg (000) Coalinga earthquakes / 5-storey irreg. bldg (000)

0.0 0.0

4 4

disp . (m)

. disp. (m)

0.0 0.0

3 3

0.0

Ma x X-Re s.

0. 0

Max. Y-Res

2 2

0.0 0.0

1 1

0.0 0. 0

0 5 CO 0

5 CO T

4 T 4

3 CO

3 CO St 2

St 2 ore 2

or 2 y CO

e y CO 1 1

1 1

Fig. 12. Maximum residual displacements under single and sequential ground motions.

Fig. 13. Time history of horizontal top displacement for 3-storey bldg under Mammoth Lakes earthquakes.

index (DI) is computed. This DI takes into account both the maximum b¼0.05–0.20) to control strength deterioration, Eh is the hysteretic

deformation and the hysteretic energy of structural members and energy absorbed by the element during the earthquake, and Μy is

can be deﬁned as the yield moment of the element. In this work, parameter b is set

equal to 0.05 [11] and the ductility is deﬁned in terms of curvature.

μm bEh

DI ¼ þ ð2Þ Fig. 10 shows the DI for single seismic events and seismic sequences

μu My φu

for characteristic structural members (the members' numbering is

where μm represents the maximum ductility of the element, μu is depicted in Figs. 1–4). It is obvious that seismic sequences cause an

its ultimate ductility, b is a model constant parameter (usually, increment of DI in comparison with single seismic events.

M. Hatzivassiliou, G.D. Hatzigeorgiou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 72 (2015) 77–88 85

4.2. Maximum horizontal displacements permanent displacements, which are accumulated during oncom-

ing earthquakes and therefore the maximum displacements

The maximum displacements, both for single and for sequen- appear to be increased for the case of seismic sequences in

tial ground motions, are shown in Fig. 11 for various characteristic comparison with the case of single earthquakes. These ﬁndings

cases of structures, siting conﬁgurations and multiple earthquakes. have been observed for all the examined structures, for any case of

The examined structures subjected to strong motions present siting (for irregular structures) and almost for the entire set of the

examined real seismic sequences under consideration. Finally, it

can be easily concluded examining Fig. 11 that every structure

under consideration may be excited in a different manner for each

individual earthquake, or equivalently, a single earthquake from a

speciﬁc seismic sequence can be the most intense for a structure

and less critical for another structure, but for the most of the cases,

seismic sequences generally lead to higher and more intense

response in comparison with the ‘worst’ single earthquakes.

sequences strongly affect residual displacements, too. This phenom-

enon is clearly shown in Fig. 12, which presents selected results, and

this is compatible with the ﬁndings of previous research studies that

have to do with single-degree-of-freedom systems [3,6] or planar

multi-storey building structures [11,15,16].

Figs. 13 and 14 show the time history of horizontal displacements

Fig. 14. Time history of horizontal top displacement for 3-storey bldg under occurring at the top of the structures. It is obvious that residual

Imperial Valley earthquakes. displacements are accumulated during the seismic sequence. This

Fig. 15. Maximum IDR under single and sequential ground motions.

86 M. Hatzivassiliou, G.D. Hatzigeorgiou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 72 (2015) 77–88

Fig. 16. Residual IDR for 3-storey irregular bldg under Mammoth Lakes earthquakes.

Fig. 17. Residual IDR for 5-storey irregular bldg under Mammoth Lakes earthquakes.

ﬁnding is also compatible with the conclusions of previous studies 4.6. Ductility demands

[11,16].

A suitable approach to quantify the severity of inelastic

response is the ductility demand, μ, which can be deﬁned in

4.4. Interstorey drift ratio (IDR)

terms of displacement, and rotation or curvature. This study

presents results that are exclusively based on curvature ductility

One of the most critical structural parameter is the interstorey

demand, mϕ, which can be deﬁned as the ratio of ultimate

drift ratio (IDR). This ratio can be deﬁned as the maximum relative

curvature, ϕu, to yield curvature, ϕy, as

displacement between two successive stories normalized to the

storey height and it has been related to the structural or non- ϕp

ϕu

structural damage [28]. Fig. 15 presents typical characteristic μϕ ¼ ¼ 1þ ð3Þ

ϕy ϕy

examples for the IDR where it is evident that seismic sequences

lead to higher drifts in comparison with the corresponding single

where ϕp is the plastic curvature. This section focuses on the

ground motions.

increment of ductility demands due to the multiplicity of earth-

quakes. Without loss of generality, the inelastic response of

4.5. Residual interstorey drift ratio 5-storey irregular building under the Mammoth Lakes seismic

sequence is examined in the following. Thus, Fig. 18 shows the

Another critical parameter is the residual interstorey drift ratio ductility demands both for single earthquakes and for seismic

(Res.IDR), which has to do with the permanent deformation of a sequence examining member no. 1 (ground ﬂoor column, see

structure that remains after a strong ground motion. This para- Fig. 4). In order to examine the effect of earthquake direction

meter is useful to evaluate the seismic performance of a structure incident, Fig. 18 depicts the ductility demands for the whole set of

after a strong earthquake and the potential damage that the incident angles, i.e., for 01, 901, 1801 and 2701, as mentioned and

structure has sustained [29,30]. Figs. 16 and 17 clearly show that analyzed in Section 2.4. It is evident that each incident angle leads

seismic sequences cause increased residual IDR. to different response in comparison with the other cases under

M. Hatzivassiliou, G.D. Hatzigeorgiou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 72 (2015) 77–88 87

MA1 90

MA2 90

140 140

120 120

135 45 135 45

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

Ductility demands

Ductility demands

20 20

0 180 0 0 180 0

20 20

40 40

60 60

80 80

100 100

225 315 225 315

120 120

140 140

270 270

MA3 90

MA4 90

140 140

120 120

135 45 135 45

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

Ductility deman ds

Ductility demands

20 20

0 180 0 0 180 0

20 20

40 40

60 60

80 80

100 100

225 315 225 315

120 120

140 140

270 270

MA5 MAT

90

140

120

135 45

100

80

60

40

Ductility demands

20

0 180 0

20

40

60

80

100

225 315

120

140

270

Fig. 18. Ductility demands under single and sequential ground motions, for angles 01, 901, 1801, and 2701.

88 M. Hatzivassiliou, G.D. Hatzigeorgiou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 72 (2015) 77–88

consideration. Furthermore, it is obvious that the multiplicity of [3] Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE. Inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF struc-

earthquakes leads to increased ductility demands in comparison tures subjected to repeated earthquakes. Eng Struct 2009;31:2744–55.

[4] Hatzigeorgiou GD. Ductility demand spectra for multiple near- and far-fault

with the corresponding individual seismic events. Therefore, the earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2010;30:170–83.

repeated earthquakes phenomenon as well as the 3-D character of [5] Hatzigeorgiou GD. Behavior factors for nonlinear structures subjected to

structural modeling, seismic loading and response should be taken multiple near-fault earthquakes. Comput Struct 2010;88:309–21.

[6] Hatzigeorgiou GD. Ductility demands control under repeated earthquakes

into account for the seismic design of RC structures.

using appropriate force reduction factors. J Earthq Tsunami 2010;4(3):231–50.

[7] Moustafa A, Takewaki I. Response of nonlinear single-degree-of-freedom

structures to random acceleration sequences. Eng Struct 2011;33(4):1251–8.

5. Conclusions [8] Takewaki I, Moustafa A, Fujita K. Response of nonlinear SDOF structures to

random acceleration sequences. In: Takewaki I, Moustafa A, Fujita K, editors.

This paper examined the inelastic behavior of regular and Improving the earthquake resilience of buildings. London: Springer; 2013.

p. 135–49.

irregular three-dimensional RC structures subjected to multiple [9] Fragiacomo M, Amadio C, Macorini L. Seismic response of steel frames under

earthquakes. Additionally, the irregular buildings were analyzed repeated earthquake ground motions. Eng Struct 2004;26:2021–35.

for different angles between the principles axes of structures and [10] Li Q, Ellingwood BR. Performance evaluation and damage assessment of steel

frame buildings under main shock-aftershock sequences. Earthq Eng Struct

the components of earthquakes. According to this investigation,

Dyn 2007;36:405–27.

the following conclusions can be highlighted: [11] Hatzigeorgiou GD, Liolios AA. Nonlinear behaviour of RC frames under

repeated strong ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2010;30:1010–25.

1. The displacements occurring in the top of the structures for the [12] Ruiz-Garcia J, Negrete-Manriquez JC. Evaluation of drift demands in existing

steel frames under as-recorded far-ﬁeld and near-fault mainshock–aftershock

seismic sequences are higher than those for the corresponding seismic sequences. Eng Struct 2011;33:621–34.

single seismic events. In some cases, the displacements for [13] Loulelis D, Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE. Moment resisting steel frames under

the case of repeated earthquakes appear to be doubled or repeated earthquakes. Earthq Struct 2012;3(3-4):231–48.

[14] Faisal A, Majid TA, Hatzigeorgiou GD. Investigation of story ductility demands

even more.

of inelastic concrete frames subjected to repeated earthquakes. Soil Dyn

2. The residual displacements increase and accumulated when Earthq Eng 2013;44:42–53.

the structures are subjected to multiple earthquakes. Similarly, [15] Efraimiadou S, Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE. Structural pounding between

residual interstorey drift ratios are increased when a structure adjacent buildings subjected to strong ground motions. Part II: the effect of

multiple earthquakes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2013;42:1529–45.

is subjected to repeated earthquakes. In some cases, these [16] Di Sarno L. Effects of multiple earthquakes on inelastic structural response.

displacements and ratios can be increased tenfold or more in Eng Struct 2013;56:673–81.

comparison with the more intense single ground motion. [17] Abdelnaby A, Elnashai A. Performance of degrading reinforced concrete frame

3. Multiple earthquakes lead to accumulated structural damage. systems under Tohoku and Christchurch earthquake sequences. J Earthq Eng

2014;18(7):1009–36.

In some cases, damage indices for structural members can be [18] Carr AJ. RUAUMOKO– inelastic dynamic analysis program. Christchurch, New

increased ﬁvefold or more in comparison with the more Zealand: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury; 2008.

intense single ground motion. Furthermore, it is found that, [19] Pi-systems international/stereoSTATIKA. 〈http:/www.pi.gr〉. [accessed 13.12.2013].

[20] European Committee for Standardization, Eurocode 2: design of concrete

many structural members can behave elastically during indivi- structure; part 1-1: general rules and rules for buildings; EN 1992-1-1,

dual ground motions while they behave inelastically during a Brussels. 2004.

seismic sequence, i.e., they are damaged. This noteworthy [21] European Committee for Standardization, Eurocode 8: design of structures for

phenomenon has mainly to do with the redistribution of earthquake resistance; part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for

buildings, EN 1998-1; EN 1998-1, Brussels. 2005.

internal forces and the alteration of lateral stiffness of buildings [22] Chopra A. Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake

during the ﬁrst strong ground motion and therefore the engineering. 3rd ed.. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc; 2006.

structure appear to have different dynamic characteristics [23] IMBSEN software systems/Xtract. 〈http:www.imbsen.com〉. [accessed 15.08.2014].

[24] Paciﬁc Earthquake Engineering Research Center. PEER strong motion database.

during the oncoming earthquakes.

〈http:www.peer.berkeley.edu/smcat〉. [accessed 15.08.2014].

4. The ductility demands during seismic sequences are increased [25] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct

in relation with single ground motions. Similarly to the pre- Dyn 2002;31:491–514.

vious conclusion, in some members, although that there is no [26] Baker JW. The conditional mean spectrum: a tool for ground motion selection.

Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE 2010;137:322–31.

need to endow them with adequate ductility capacities during [27] Park YJ, Ang AHS. Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete.

the individual seismic events, in the case of seismic sequence J Struct Divi ASCE 1985;111(4):722–39.

the ductility demands appear to be increased. Furthermore, this [28] Ghobarah A, Abou-Elfath H, Biddah A. Response-based damage assessment of

structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1999;28:79–104.

phenomenon is strongly depended on the siting conﬁguration

[29] Hatzigeorgiou GD, Papagiannopoulos GA, Beskos DE. Evaluation of maximum

of the building and therefore, the three-dimensional character seismic displacements of SDOF systems from their residual deformation. Eng

of structural modeling, of seismic loading as well as of response Struct 2011;33:3422–31.

should be taken into account for the seismic design of RC [30] Christidis AA, Dimitroudi EG, Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE. Maximum seismic

displacements evaluation of steel frames from their post-earthquake residual

structures. deformation. Bull Earthq Eng 2013;11:2233–48.

References

motions on the non-linear response of SDOF systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn

2003;32:291–308.

[2] Luco N, Bazzurro P, Cornell CA, Dynamic versus static computation of the

residual capacity of a mainshock-damaged building to withstand an after-

shock. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineer-

ing. Vancouver, Canada: 2004Paper 2405.

- Building Safer Structures ArraDiunggah olehArra Jose
- Design for Blast and Seismic.pdfDiunggah olehHyunkyoun Jin
- muk5 - CopyDiunggah olehMuhammed Muktar
- Seismic Code Requirements for NonStructural Components Part ADiunggah olehw_barnett
- Fragility & ShakeMapsDiunggah olehDavid Gutierrez Rivera
- University Concrete Research PapersDiunggah olehAshok Kumar
- 3D Time History Analysis of RC Structures Versus Common MethodstDiunggah olehDemçe Florjan
- SeismicGuidelines_WaterPipelinesDiunggah olehanon_839792731
- 1-s2.0-S014102960600201X-mainDiunggah olehakshay chauhan
- vivek FPDiunggah olehG Siva Vignan
- SDM Example 3 Steel SMF.pdfDiunggah olehRicardoMallma
- 03 EnergiaDiunggah olehsavollo
- Contributions to the Chilean Code for Seismic Design of Buildings with Energy Dissipation Devices WCEE2012_5761Diunggah olehDoby Kamburova
- 03_sc-037_f-ipDiunggah olehBoby culius
- 617-2538-1-PBDiunggah olehhboespn
- 0deec52ea15fe76630000000Diunggah olehPiyush Tiwari
- Paper 55Diunggah olehPraveen Kumar
- 45(4)0137Diunggah olehjasamnaj
- Assessing Earthquake Risk in the UAEDiunggah olehKutty Mansoor
- S02-SI-enDiunggah olehWillygan Pm
- bren165-223(bridge engineering paper).pdfDiunggah olehShrestha Bipin
- Linear Procedures in Seismic Performance Analysis of Different.pptxDiunggah olehAngelina Cruz
- 0088Diunggah olehmuralihare
- A Review on Earthquake Vulnerability AssessmentDiunggah olehAnonymous kw8Yrp0R5r
- 10.1061@9780784480342.001.pdfDiunggah olehAngga Fajar Setiawan
- Technical Note No. TS F65 Seismic StudyDiunggah olehDidou
- SEISMIC RESPONSE OF FIXED BASE AND ISOLATED BASE BUILDING.docxDiunggah olehMonika jain
- Mat Sagar 2016Diunggah olehanirban
- COMPARATIVE SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF A MEDIOEVAL MASONRY CHURCH IN SOUTHERN ITALYDiunggah olehsaulolm
- Recent Earthquakes and the Need for a New Philosophy for Earthquake Resistant DesignDiunggah olehMuhammadRizkySaputra

- baizura_jmmDiunggah olehSiti Chan
- tsunamiDiunggah olehapi-299191302
- Kazim Paper-I.pdfDiunggah olehKazim Mehdi
- 74526_eaethquake resistant.pdfDiunggah olehbrianheksa
- Ambrasseys1996_Prediction of horizontal response spectra in Europe.pdfDiunggah olehHoracio Ulloa
- Tsunami presentationDiunggah olehThanh Trần
- Earthquake Research and Analysis - Seismology, Seismotectonic and Earthquake GeologyDiunggah olehTorres Angel
- KAR Hazard report March18 2005Diunggah olehaptureinc
- Video Activity. Shell Chief Scientist for GeophysicsDiunggah olehAnnie AR
- Fundamental of Engineering SeismologyDiunggah olehR. Mega Mahmudia
- 4 What is SeismologyDiunggah olehapurvakj
- Earth ReportDiunggah olehDiane Demariano Torcuator
- Tectonics and the Formation of MagmasDiunggah olehSambit Shuvankar Panda
- Presentation Danny NatawidjajaDiunggah olehDino Lesmana
- Zoeppritz EqDiunggah olehPrarabdh Tiwari
- Novotny Seismic Surface Waves OcrDiunggah olehEfraín Rivera Berríos
- Locating the EpicenterDiunggah olehndramoneda
- Pelecanos L 2014 PhD ThesisDiunggah olehLance Johnpaul Sy
- 132.txtDiunggah olehSamarMomin
- EGE2016 Proceedings Volume L 3Diunggah olehtzeferisp
- Current_Science_Koti_Banal (1).pdfDiunggah olehRahul Chandra
- Example of 12 Storey BuildingDiunggah olehNAUTILUS87
- Broadband Ground Motion Simulations of Mega-thrust Subduction Earthquakes Based on Multi-scale Heterogeneous-source ModelDiunggah olehcontrerasc_sebastian988
- The Distribution of B-Value in Different Seismic Provinces of Iran.pdfDiunggah olehCece Solihin
- e16Diunggah olehLilik Wahyuni Purlisstyowati
- Seismic PredictionDiunggah olehAlo Rovi
- EARTHQUAKE. DRR. 02Diunggah olehzylfiel
- RefTekDiunggah olehDenchk-12
- Numerical Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Pier under earthquackDiunggah olehrwaidaabbas
- Analysis and Design of High Rise Building Frames Staad ProDiunggah olehSanket Patel