NONLINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURES UNDER NEAR-FAULT GROUND MOTIONS USING AN IMPROVED SCALING METHOD

Assessment of the seismic performance of a structure often requires conducting nonlinear dynamic analyses under a set of ground motion records scaled to a specific level of intensity using an appropriate scaling method. In this study to reduce the variability in the seismic demands, a seismic-intensity scaling index is developed through studying weaknesses and strengths of different scaling methods. Results of the incremental nonlinear dynamic analyses of generic frames with 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 storey under 40 near-fault ground motions show that using root-mean-square value of pseudo spectral accelerations over effective period range of structures can considerably reduce the scatter in the dynamic responses particularly once higher modes and period elongation effects dominate the response. By using this scaling method, the amount of dispersion is nearly independent of the ductility demand level and the number of stories.

[1]  Eduardo Miranda,et al.  Site-Dependent Strength-Reduction Factors , 1993 .

[2]  J. Bray,et al.  Characterization of forward-directivity ground motions in the near-fault region , 2004 .

[3]  Nicolas Luco,et al.  Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures , 2007 .

[4]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design , 2002 .

[5]  Kenneth T. Farrow,et al.  Ground motion scaling methods for different site conditions and structure characteristics , 2003 .

[6]  R. Medina,et al.  Seismic Demands for Nondeteriorating Frame Structures and Their Dependence on Ground Motions , 2003 .

[7]  Farzin Zareian,et al.  Impact of Near-Fault Pulses on Engineering Design , 2005 .

[8]  L. Ibarra.  Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations , 2003 .

[9]  Eugenio Chioccarelli,et al.  Near‐source seismic demand and pulse‐like records: A discussion for L'Aquila earthquake , 2010 .

[10]  George P. Mavroeidis,et al.  A Mathematical Representation of Near-Fault Ground Motions , 2003 .

[11]  Lawrence L. Kupper,et al.  Probability, statistics, and decision for civil engineers , 1970 .

[12]  P. Somerville.  CHARACTERIZING NEAR FAULT GROUND MOTION FOR THE DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF BRIDGES , 2002 .

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

[14]  Chin-Hsiung Loh,et al.  Earthquake responses of RC moment frames subjected to near‐fault ground motions , 2001 .

[15]  C. Allin Cornell,et al.  Earthquakes, Records, and Nonlinear Responses , 1998 .

[16]  Dixiong Yang,et al.  Non‐structure‐specific intensity measure parameters and characteristic period of near‐fault ground motions , 2009 .

[17]  Helmut Krawinkler,et al.  Seismic drift and ductility demands and their dependence on ground motions , 2003 .

[18]  Vitelmo V. Bertero,et al.  Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology To Performance-Based Engineering , 2020 .

[19]  Sashi K. Kunnath,et al.  Effects of Fling Step and Forward Directivity on Seismic Response of Buildings , 2006 .

[20]  N. Abrahamson,et al.  Modification of Empirical Strong Ground Motion Attenuation Relations to Include the Amplitude and Duration Effects of Rupture Directivity , 1997 .