Mechanical behavior of buildings subjected to impulsive motions

This article analyses the response of steel-moment resisting frames subjected to near-field ground motions. In near-field areas high damage and a relevant number of collapsed steel buildings arose even when both design and detailing had been performed in perfect accordance with the code provisions. These circumstances are related to the characteristics of the motion that in such areas shows large-amplitude pulses along the fault-normal component. The response of two steel moment resisting frames characterized by different stiffness levels and subjected to seven different accelerograms recorded in stations located in near-field areas is discussed in the following. The frames have been also analyzed by modelling the real behavior of semi-rigid joints between beams and columns and taking into account the presence of passive dampers (shear link devices). The non-linear dynamic analysis has been performed with the aim of acquiring a quantitative knowledge on the effects of near-field ground motions on frame buildings and on their damage.

[1]  Robert Tremblay,et al.  Performance Evaluation of Passive Damping Systems for the Seismic Retrofit of Steel Moment-Resisting Frames Subjected to Near-Field Ground Motions , 2001 .

[2]  Dora Foti,et al.  Response of middle-rise steel frames with and without passive dampers to near-field ground motions , 2003 .

[3]  John F. Hall.  Seismic response of steel frame buildings to near‐source ground motions , 1998 .

[4]  Dora Foti,et al.  On the Seismic Response of Protected and Unprotected Middle-Rise Steel Frames in Far-Field and Near-Field Areas , 2014 .

[5]  A. Chopra,et al.  Comparing response of SDF systems to near‐fault and far‐fault earthquake motions in the context of spectral regions , 2001 .

[6]  Dora Foti,et al.  Optimal design of a new seismic passive protection device made in aluminium and steel , 2010 .

[7]  Babak Alavi,et al.  Behavior of moment‐resisting frame structures subjected to near‐fault ground motions , 2004 .

[8]  D. A. Nethercot,et al.  Designer's guide to EN 1993-1-1 : Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures : General Rules and Rules for Buildings /L. Gardner and D. A. Nethercot , 2005 .

[9]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  Assessment of RC columns subjected to horizontal and vertical ground motions recorded during the 2009 L’Aquila (Italy) earthquake , 2011 .

[10]  Dora Foti,et al.  Dynamic behavior of new aluminum–steel energy dissipating devices , 2013 .

[11]  M. Fardis,et al.  Designer's guide to EN 1998-1 and en 1998-5 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance; general rules, seismic actions, design rules for buildings, foundations and retaining structures/ M.Fardis[et al.] , 2005 .

[12]  Fabio Mazza,et al.  Nonlinear Modeling and Analysis of R.C. Framed Buildings Located in a Near-Fault Area , 2012 .

[13]  Felice Carlo Ponzo,et al.  Jet-Pacs Project: Dynamic Experimental Tests and Numerical Results Obtained for a Steel Frame Equipped with Hysteretic Damped Chevron Braces , 2012 .

[14]  Fabio Mazza,et al.  Nonlinear dynamic response of r.c. framed structures subjected to near-fault ground motions , 2010 .

[15]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  Quantitative Classification of Near-Fault Ground Motions Using Wavelet Analysis , 2007 .

[16]  X. Cahís,et al.  AN INNOVATIVE ELASTO-PLASTIC ENERGY DISSIPATOR FOR THE STRUCTURAL AND NON-STRUCTURAL BUILDING PROTECTION , 1999 .

[17]  D. Foti.  Local ground effects in near-field and far-field areas on seismically protected buildings , 2015 .

[18]  Dora Foti,et al.  Response of frames seismically protected with passive systems in near-field areas , 2014 .

[19]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  IS THERE A NEAR-FIELD FOR SMALL-TO-MODERATE MAGNITUDE EARTHQUAKES? , 2001 .

[20]  A. Chopra,et al.  Drift Spectrum vs. Modal Analysis of Structural Response to Near-Fault Ground Motions , 2001 .