پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 22 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 712 |
| تعداد مقالات | 10,258 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 72,004,584 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 63,754,940 |
Damage Sensitive-Stories of RC and Steel Frames under Critical Mainshock-Aftershock Ground Motions | ||
| Journal of Rehabilitation in Civil Engineering | ||
| مقاله 1، دوره 10، شماره 3 - شماره پیاپی 27، آبان 2022، صفحه 1-20 اصل مقاله (2.12 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Regular Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22075/jrce.2021.22564.1487 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Elham Rajabi* 1؛ Gholamreza Ghodrati Amiri2 | ||
| 1Department of Civil Engineering, Tafresh University, Tafresh 39518–79611, Iran | ||
| 2Natural Disasters Prevention Research Center, School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science & Technology, PO Box 16765-163, Narmak, Tehran 16846, Iran | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 18 بهمن 1399، تاریخ بازنگری: 29 مرداد 1400، تاریخ پذیرش: 24 مهر 1400 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Cumulated damages caused by the past earthquakes lead to structural damage. Ensuring the safety of individuals – especially in highly populated buildings – and the continuity of immediate occupancy in consecutive earthquakes with short periods is an important matter to consider in seismic design codes. The use of strategies, such as identifying damage sensitive stories, can help ensure the safety of such buildings. This paper identifies damage sensitive stories for reinforced concrete (RC) and steel frames based on damage distribution caused by critical mainshock-aftershocks. In this regard, short, medium and relatively tall steel and RC frames with 3 and 5, 7, 10, 12 and 15 stories are analyzed under single and successive scenarios in the OpenSees software. Damage distribution of frames show that the upper stories in frames with low and medium height and middle stories toward higher stories in relatively tall frames are damage sensitive stories. Also, when tested against successive shocks, the initially-damaged steel frames experienced more destruction than RC frames. In severe conditions, the increased damages of steel frames were about 57%, 94%, 42%, 33% and 84% more than those of the RC frames. Moreover, steel frames with 15 stories were better able to sustain additional damages than RC frames (by about 1.84 times). | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Damage sensitive-story؛ Critical aftershock؛ Cumulative damages؛ Reinforced concrete and steel frames | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
[1] Di Sarno, L., Ren Wu, J. (2021). “Fragility assessment of existing low-rise steel moment-resisting frames with masonry in fills under mainshock-aftershock earthquake sequences.” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 19: 2483–2504.
[2] Trevlopoulos, K., Gueguen, P., Helmstetter, A., Cotton, F. (2020). “Earthquake risk in reinforced concrete buildings during aftershock sequences based on period elongation and operational earthquake forecasting.” Structural Safety, 2020, 84, 101922.
[3] Shi, F., Saygili, G., Ozbulut, O., and Zhou, Y. (2020). “Risk-based mainshock-aftershock performance assessment of SMA braced steel frames.” Engineering Structures, Volume 212, 1 June 2020, 110506.
[4] Yang, F., Wang, G., and Ding, Y (2019). “Damage demands evaluation of reinforced concrete frame structure subjected to near‑fault seismic sequences.” Natural Hazards, 97:841–86.
[5] Jalayer, F., Ebrahimian, H. (2017). “Seismic risk assessment considering cumulative damage due to aftershocks.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2017, 46(3), 369-389.
[6] Zhang, L., Goda, K., Luca, F. D., De Risi, R. (2020). “Mainshock‐aftershock state‐dependent fragility curves: A case of wood‐frame houses in British Columbia, Canada.” Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamic, 2020, 1–20.
[7] Wen, W., Ji, D., Zhai, C. H. (2020). “Cumulative Damage of Structures under the Mainshock-aftershock Sequences in the Near-fault Region, Journal of Earthquake Engineering.” Published online, 30 Apr 2020. DOI:0.1080/13632469.2020.1754307
[8] Zhai, C. H., Bao, X., Zheng, Z., Wang, X. (2018). “Impact of aftershocks on a post-mainshock damaged containment structure considering duration.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2018, 115: 129–141.
[9] Wen, W., Ji, D., Zhai, C. H., Li, X., Sun, P. (2018). “Damage spectra of the mainshock-aftershock ground motions at soft soil sites.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2018, 115: 815–825.
[10] Zhang, Y., Chen, J., Sun, C. H. (2017). “Damage-based strength reduction factor for nonlinear structures subjected to sequence-type ground motions.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2017, 92: 298–311.
[11] Ghaderi, M., and Gholizadeh, S. (2021). “Mainshock–aftershock low-cycle fatigue damage evaluation of performance-based optimally designed steel moment frames.” Engineering Structures, 237, 15 June 2021, 112207.
[12] Pan, H., and Kusunoki, K. (2020). “Aftershock damage prediction of reinforced-concrete buildings using capacity spectrum assessments.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 129 (2020) 105952.
[13] Ghodrati Amiri, G., Rajabi, E. (2018). “Effects of Consecutive Earthquakes on Increased Damage and Response of Reinforced Concrete Structures.” Computers and Concrete, 2018, 21(1): 55-66.
[14] Park, Y. J., Ang, A. H. (1985). “Mechanistic Seismic Damage Model for Reinforced Concrete.” Journal of Structure, 1985, ASCE 111(4): 722-739.
[15] Ghodrati Amiri, G., Manouchehri Dana, F. (2005). “Introduction of the most suitable parameter for selection of critical earthquake.” Computers & Structures, 2005, 83(8-9), 613-626.
[16] PEER, PEER NGA Database, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California, 2017.
[17] USGS, United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program, 2015.
[18] Ghodrati Amiri, G., Rajabi, E. (2017). “Damage Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete and Steel Frames under Critical Successive Scenarios.” International Journal of Steel Structures, 2017, 17(4): 1495-1514.
[19] Vamvatsikos, D., Cornell, C. A. (2002). Incremental dynamic analysis, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 2002, 31(3): 491–514.
[20] Hancock, J., Bommer, J. J., Stafford, P. J. (2008). “Numbers of scaled and matched accelerograms required for inelastic dynamic analyses.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamic, 2008, 37, 1585-1607.
[21] Atkinson, G. M. (2009). “Earthquake Time Histories Compatible with the 2005 NBCC Uniform Hazard Spectrum.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 36(6): 991-1000.
[22] Lignos, D. G., Hikino, T., Matsuoka, Y., Nakashima, M. (2013). “Collapse Assessment of Steel Moment Frames Based on E-Defense Full-Scale Shake Table Collapse Tests.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 139(1): 120-132. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST. 1943-541X.0000608.
[23] Nagae, T., Ghannoum, W. M., Kwon, J., Tahara, K., Fukuyama, k., Matsumori, T., Shiohara, H., Kabeyasawa, T., Kono, S., Nishiyama, M., Saus, R., Wallace, J. W., Moehle, J. P. (2015). “Design Implications of Large-Scale Shake-Table Test on Four-Story Reinforced Concrete Building.” ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL, TECHNICAL PAPER. ACI Structural Journal, 112(1-6): 135-146, MS No. S-2013-022.R2, Doi: 10.14359/51687421. American Concrete Institute.
[24] Haselton, C., Taylor Lange, A., Liel, B., Deierlein, G. G. (2007). “Beam-Column Element Model Calibrated for Predicting Flexural Response Leading to Global Collapse of RC Frame Buildings.” Report No. PEER Report 2007/03. Berkeley Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center College of Engineering, University of California.
[25] Moehle, J. K., Mahin, S., Bozorgnia, Y. (2010). “Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design and Analysis of Tall Buildings.” PEER/ATC-72-1. Repared by APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL Courtesy of Joseph Maffei, Rutherford & Chekene, San Francisco, California, 2010.
[26] Ibarra, L. F., Media, R. A., Krawinkler, H. (2005). “Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural dynamics, 2005, 34:1489–1511.
[27] Fan, Y., Guo, Z., Zhao, P., and Yu, B. (2021). “Experimental Study of Seismic Damage with Park-Ang Model for Recycled Aggregate Concrete Columns.” KSCE J Civ Eng (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-021-1110-x.
[28] Hait, P., Sil, A., and Choudhury, S. (2021). “Prediction of global damage index of reinforced concrete building using artificial neural network.” International Journal for Computational Methods in Engineering Science and Mechanics. Doi: 10.1080/15502287.2021.1887405.
[29] Lakhade, S. O., Kumar, R., Jaiswal, O. R. (2020). “Estimation of drift limits for different seismic damage states of RC frame staging in elevated water tanks using Park and Ang damage index.” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2020, 19:161–177.
[30] Payganeh, M. B., Mortezaei, A. (2020). “Seismic Damage Assessment of RC Buildings Subjected to the Rotational Ground Motion Records Considering Soil-Structure Interaction.” Journal of Rehabilitation in Civil Engineering 8-2 (2020) 62-80.
[31] Carrillo, J., Vera, S. O., Blandonc, C. (2019). “Damage assessment of squat, thin and lightly-reinforced concrete walls by the Park & Ang damage index.” Journal of Building Engineering 26 (2019) 100921. Doi: 100921. 10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100921.
[32] Hatzivassiliou, M., Hatzigeorgiou, G. D. (2015). “Seismic sequence effects on three-dimensional reinforced concrete buildings.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2015, 72: 77 – 88.
[33] Park, Y. J., Reinhorn, A. M., Kunnath, S. K. (1987). IDARC: Inelastic Damage Analysis of Frame Shear-Wall Structures, Technical Report NCEER-87-0008, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of NewYork at Buffalo, NY, 1987.
[34] Ghosh, S., Datta, D., Katakdhond, A. A. (2011). “Evaluation of the Park-Ang damage index for planar multi-story frames using equivalent single-degree system”. Engineering Structures, 2011, 33: 2509-2524.
[35] Sorace, S. (1998). “Seismic damage assessment of steel frames.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 1998, 124(5). | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,064 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 617 |
||