The Effect of Directivity Pulse of Near Fault Earthquakes on Seismic Response of a Tall Building

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 International Institute of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering (IIEES), Tehran, Iran

2 Structural Engineering Research Center, International Institute of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering (IIEES), Tehran, Iran

Abstract

A special class of ground motions near the fault regions has distinct characteristics that are different from far-field ground motions. One of the critical features of these ground motions is the existence of a velocity pulse in the ground motion record in the direction perpendicular to the fault rupture. These pulse-like ground motions generally occur when the fault rupture propagates towards a site located near the fault. The accumulation of energy in the seismic wave front results in a velocity pulse with a relatively long period in the direction perpendicular to the fault line. This phenomenon could adversely affect the seismic performance of tall buildings with relatively long fundamental periods.
In this paper the effect of velocity pulse on seismic response of a 42-story reinforced concrete building with a central core wall structural system is evaluated. The building has already been studied in the TBI project of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). The structural model of the building is developed based on the information contained in the PEER report. The model is first verified by conducting a nonlinear response analysis using one of the ground motion records in the PEER report and comparing the results with that report. After verification, the model is subjected to three earthquake records each containing a velocity pulse (i.e., Northridge 1994, Cape Mendocino 1992, and Chuetsu-Oki, Japan 2007). Subsequently, the velocity pulse of each record is removed using a recently proposed wavelet-based signal processing approach and the building is analyzed again to determine the impact of the velocity pulse. The results of the analyses show that the velocity pulse significantly affects the seismic response of the building. By removing the velocity pulse, the lateral drift and rotation of the coupling beams decrease by about 50% and 60%, respectively. Also, the forces in the structure (shear and bending moment) are reduced by about 40%. The dominant effect of the velocity pulse on the seismic response of the building is due to the high energy content in the frequency range of the pulse velocity. However, due to the different frequency content of each record, the effect of the pulse period cannot be accurately assessed. Therefore, the study of buildings with the same lateral bearing system and different natural periods (i.e.,

Keywords

References

1.    Somerville, P.G. (1998) Development of an improved representation of near fault ground motions. SMIP98 Seminar on Utilization of Strong-Motion Data, 15.
2.    Ambraseys, N.N. and Douglas, J. (2003) Near-field horizontal and vertical earthquake ground motions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 23(1), 1-18.
3.    Memarpour, M., Ghodrati Amiri, Gh., Razeghi, H.R., and Akbarzadeh, M. (2016) Characteristics of horizontal and vertical near-field ground motions and investigation of their effects on the dynamic response of bridges. Journal of Rehabilitation in Civil Engineering, 4(2), 10-28.
4.    Krawinkler, H. and Alavi, B. (1998) Development of improved design procedures for near-fault ground motions. SMIP98 Seminar on Utilization of Strong-Motion Data, 15.
5.    Hall, F., Heaton, T., Halling, M., and Wald, D.J. (1995) Near-source ground motion and its effects    on flexible buildings. Earthquake Spectra, 11(4), 569-605.
6.    Archila, M. (2014) Directionality Effects of Pulse-Like Near Field Ground Motions on Seismic Response of Tall Buildings. Diss. University of British Columbia.
7.    Alavi, B. and Krawinkler, H. (2004) Behavior of moment‐resisting frame structures subjected to near‐fault ground motions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 33(6), 687-706.
8.    Calugaru, V. and Panagiotou, M. (2012) Response of tall cantilever wall buildings to strong pulse type seismic excitation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 41(9), 1301-1318.
9.    Molina Hutt, C., Almufti, I., Willford, M., and Dierlein, G.G. (2015) Seismic loss and downtime assessment of existing tall steel-framed buildings and strategies for increased resilience. Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(8), 415-425.
10.    Kohrangi, M., Vamvatsikos, D., and Bazzurro, P. (2018) Pulse‐like versus non‐pulse‐like ground motion records: spectral shape comparisons and record selection strategies. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 48(1), 46-64.
11.    Moehle, J., Bozorgnia, Y., Jayaram, N., Jones, P., Rahnama, M., Shome, N., Tuna, Z., Wallace, J., and Zareian, F. (2011) Case Studies of the Seismic Performance of Tall Buildings Designed by Alternative Means. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center College of Engineering University of California, Berkeley PEER Report 5.
12.    International Code Council (2006) International Building Code, Falls Church, VA.
13.    LATBSDC (2008) An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located in the Los Angeles Region. Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council, Los Angeles, CA.
14.    Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (2010) Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings. College of Engineering, University of California, CA.
15.    ACI Committee 363 (1992) State-of-the-Art Report in High Strength Concrete. American Concrete Institute.
16.    ASCE (2006) Minimum Designs Loads for Buildings and other Structures. ASCE/SEI 7-05, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
17.    Baker, J.W. (2007) Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 97(5), 1486-1501.
Bulletin of Earthquake Science and Engineering
Volume 7, Issue 3 - Serial Number 24
November 2020
Pages 69-82

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 December 2017
  • Revise Date: 25 February 2019
  • Accept Date: 25 February 2019

Share

How to cite

Statistics