Near-fault effects on the seismic demand of RC buildings in linear and nonlinear analyses

Document Type : Article


Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kharazmi University, No. 43, Dr. Mofatteh Ave., Tehran, 15719-14911, Iran


Strong ground motions of near-fault earthquakes are mostly generated by forward-directivity effects. Forward-directivity effects develop energetic pulses particularly in horizontal velocity history of fault-normal component. The narrow-band nature of the pulses results in revealing at least two peaks on the response spectra and also increasing seismic demand especially for mid-rise and high-rise buildings. Iranian seismic code (IS 2800-14) presents the coefficient N, for considering near-fault effects. It seems that the N is not efficient for designing in near-fault zone. The accurate near-fault demands can be determined by using nonlinear response history analyses. In the present paper, two 3-D reinforced concrete framed structures (RC buildings) are designed according to ACI 2014 and IS 2800-14. Then, the demands are estimated by employing linear response history analysis (LRHA) and also nonlinear response history analysis (NRHA) under an ensemble of 11 near-fault ground motions. The results reveal that the design spectrum of IS 2800-14 is incompatible with near-fault spectra and underestimates demands in the long periods range. Further, implementation of LRHA using response modification factor (Ru) and deflection amplification factor (Cd) leads to insufficient inter-story drift ratios. Finally, the influence of enhancing ductility is studied by determining ductility reduction factors for near-fault records.


Main Subjects

1.Stewart, J.P., Chiou, S.J., Bray, J.D., Graves, R.W., Somerville, P.G., and Abrahamson, N.A. Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design", Soil Dyn. And Earthq. Engrg., 22(9), pp. 765- 772 (2002).
2. Alavi, B. and Krawinkler, H. E_ects of Near-fault Ground Motions on Frame Structures, John A. Blume Earthq. Engrg. Center, California, USA (2001).
3. Bolt, B.A. The San Fernando earthquake, 1971. Magnitudes, aftershocks, and fault dynamics", Bull., 196 (1975).
4. Anderson, J.C. and Bertero, V.V. Uncertainties in establishing design earthquakes", J. of Struct. Engrg., 113(8), pp. 1709-1724 (1987).
5. Kalkan, E. and Kunnath, S.K. E_ects of ing step and forward-directivity on seismic response of buildings", Earthq. Spect., 22(2), pp. 367-390 (2006).
6. Chang, T.P. and Yu, G.K. A study of strong motion response spectrum in west-central Taiwan", Terrestrial, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences., 13(2), pp. 135-152 (2002).
7. Choi, I., Kim, M.K., Choun, Y.S., and Seo, J.M. Shaking table test of steel frame structures subjected to scenario earthquakes", Nuclear Engrg. And Tech., 37(2), pp. 191-200 (2005).
8. Choi, H., Saiidi, M.S., Somerville, P., and El-Azazi, S. Bridge seismic analysis procedure to address nearfault e_ects", A Report of Nevada University (Reno), Virginia, USA (2005).
9. Su, F., Anderson, J.G., and Zeng, Y. Characteristics of ground motion response spectra from recent large earthquakes and their comparison with IEEE standard 693", In Proceed. of 100th Anniv. Earthq. Conf., Commemorating the 1906, pp. 18-22 (2006).
10. Hatzigeorgiou, G.D. Ductility demand spectra for multiple near-and far-fault earthquakes", Soil Dyn. And Earthq. Engrg., 30(4), pp. 170-183 (2010).
11. Durucan, C. and Durucan. A.R., A p/V p speci_c inelastic displacement ratio for the seismic response estimation of SDOF structures subjected to sequential near fault pulse type ground motion records", Soil Dyn. And Earthq. Engrg., 89, pp. 163-170 (2016).
12. Yaghmaei-Sabegh, S. and Tsang, H.H. An updated study on near-fault ground motions of the 1978 Tabas, Iran, earthquake (Mw= 7.4)", Scientia Iranica, 18(4), pp. 895-905 (2011).
13. Champion, C. and Liel, A. The e_ect of nearfault directivity on building seismic collapse risk", Earthq. Engrg. And Struct. Dyn., 41(10), pp. 1391- 1409 (2012).
14. Alavi, B. and Krawinkler, H. Strengthening of moment-resisting frame structures against near-fault ground motion e_ects", Earthq. Eng. And Struct. Dyn., 33(6), pp. 707-722 (2004).
15. Massumi, A., Mahboubi, B., and Ameri, M.R. Seismic response of RC frame structures strengthened by reinforced masonry in_ll panels", Earthq. And Struct., 8(6), pp. 1435-1452 (2015).
16. Mortezaei, A., Ronagh, H.R., and Kheyroddin, A. Seismic evaluation of FRP strengthened RC buildings subjected to near-fault ground motions having ing step", Compos. Struct., 92(5), pp. 1200-1211 (2010).
17. Ponzo, F.C., Di Cesare, A., Nigro, D., Vulcano, A., Mazza, F., Dolce, M., and Moroni, C. JET-PACS project: Dynamic experimental tests and numerical results obtained for a steel frame equipped with hysteretic damped chevron braces", J. of Earthq. Engrg., 16(5), pp. 662-685 (2012). M.H. Mohammadi et al./Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 26 (2019) 188{201 201
18. Mazza, F. Nonlinear incremental analysis of _redamaged r.c. base-isolated structures subjected to near-fault ground motions", Soil Dyn. and Earthq. Engrg., 77, pp. 192-202 (2015).
19. Mazza, F. Nonlinear response of r.c. framed buildings retro_tted by di_erent base-isolation systems under horizontal and vertical components of near-fault earthquakes", Earthq. And Struct., 12(1), pp. 135-144 (2017).
20. Sorace, S. and Terenzi, G. A viable base isolation strategy for the advanced seismic retro_t of an R/C building", Contemp. Engrg. Sci., 7(17-20), pp. 817-834 (2014).
21. Mazza, F. Comparative study of the seismic response of RC framed buildings retro_tted using modern techniques", Earthq. And Struct., 9(1), pp. 29-48 (2015).
22. Grigorian, C.E. and Grigorian, M. Performance control and efficient design of rocking-wall moment frames", J. of Struct. Engrg., 142(2), 04015139 (2015).
23. Rahgozar, N., Moghadam, A.S., and Aziminejad, A. Inelastic displacement ratios of fully self-centering controlled rocking systems subjected to near-source pulse-like ground motions", Engrg. Struct., 108, pp. 113-133 (2016).
24. Gerami, M. and Abdollahzadeh, D. Estimation of forward directivity effect on design spectra in near field of fault", J. of Basic. and app. Scifc. Res., 2(9), pp. 8670-8686 (2012).
25. American Concrete Institute, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14), Michigan, USA (2014). 26. Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Building, Standard No. 2800 (4th Edition), Tehran, Iran (2014). 27. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-10), Virginia, USA (2010).
28. Haselton, C.B., Whittaker A.S., Hortacsu A., Baker J.W., Bray J., and Grant D.N. Selecting and scaling earthquake ground motions for performing responsehistory analyses", In Proceed. of the 15th World Conf. on Earthq. Engrg. (2012).
29. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Seismic Evaluation and Retro_t of Existing Buildings (ASCE/SEI 41-13), Virginia, USA (2013).
30. Takeda, T., Sozen, M.A., and Nielsen, N.N. Reinforced concrete response to simulated earthquakes", J. of the Struct. Dyn., 96(12), pp. 2557-2573 (1970).
31. Hilber, H.M., Hughes, T.J., and Taylor, R.L. Improved numerical dissipation for time integration algorithms in structural dynamics", Earthq. Engrg. And. Struct. Dyn., 5(3), pp. 283-292 (1977).
32. Sehhati, R., Rodriguez-Marek, A., ElGawady, M., and Cofer, W.F. E_ects of near-fault ground motions and equivalent pulses on multi-story structures", Engrg. Struct., 33(3), pp. 767-779 (2011).
33. Tasnimi, A.A. and Massumi, A., Estimation of Response Modi_cation Factors for RC-MRF Structures, Building and Housing Research Center (BHRC), Tehran, Iran (2007).