Study on Ground Motion Intensities and Modification for Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frames

Abstract:

The selection of input ground motion for seismic analysis of the structure is a complicated task, especially when nonlinear dynamic analysis is utilized. A decision has to be made regarding the intensity measure better to represent the potential damage of the ground motion. This paper presents a lot of analysis to deal with the problem. A set of nonlinear dynamic analyses were conducted on reinforced concrete buildings widely present in China. Input ground motions contain uncertainty and variability comes from both natural recordings and synthetic data. First, a set of natural recordings is considered. Second, two ground motion modification schemes are used in this study: magnitude scaling and spectrum matching. Third, a set of ground motion is synthesized. The peak value of displacement has been selected as the response parameter better able to represent the structural damage level. Nonlinear dynamic analyses of reinforced concrete buildings simulated by OpenSEES are carried out to evaluate the correlation coefficients of displacement response and the chosen ground motion parameters. Findings from the investigation indicate that the Housner intensity is the more effective intensity measure for selecting the seismic input. The synthesized ground motion fit with code spectrum shows good performance as a design input motion. Considering ground motion modification, spectrum matching is generally more stable in response prediction than scaling.

• Periodical: Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 1065-1069)
• Pages: 1438-1442
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.1065-1069.1438
• Online since: December 2014
• Authors: Dong An*, Tie Jun Qu
• Keywords: Correlation Coefficients, Ground Motion Parameters, OpenSEES, Reinforced Concrete, Seismic Response

References

[1] Heo Y., Kunnath S. K. etc: Journal of Structural Engineering Vol. 137(3) (2011) p.278.

[2] Honda R., Ahmed T.: Journal of Structural Engineering Vol. 137(3) (2011) p.391.

[3] Masi A., Vona M., Mucciarelli M.: Journal of Structural Engineering Vol. 137(3) (2011) p.367.

[4] Hancock J., Bommer J.J.: EarthquakeEngineering&Structural DynamicsVol. 37(14)(2008) p.1585.

[5] Dong An, Tiejun Qu: Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics Vol. 34(1) (2014) p.123.

[6] Information on http: /peer. berkeley. edu/peer_ground_motion_database (2014).

[7] Information on http: /www. seismosoft. com (2013).

[8] China Academy of Building Research: GB50011-2010. Code for Seismic Design of Buildings (China Architecture & Building Press, Beijing 2010) (in Chinese).

[9] Abrahamson N. A: Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 6 (1) (1992) p.30.

[10] Hancock J., Watson-Lamprey, etc: Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 10 (2006) p.67.

[11] Lilhanand K., Tseng W. S: Proc. of the 9th WCEE, Tokyo Japan Vol. II (1988) p.819.

[12] China Academy of Building Research: GB50010-2010. Code for Design of Concrete Structures (China Architecture & Building Press, Beijing 2010) (in Chinese).

[13] Information on http: /opensees. berkeley. edu (2014).

[14] Kramer S. L: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering (Prentice-Hall, 1996).

[15] Von Thun J.L., Rochim L.H., etc: Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II - Recent Advances in Ground-Motion Evaluation, Geotechnical Special Publication, Vol. 20 (1988) p.463.

[16] Nuttli O.W. Miscellaneous Paper S-71-1, Report 16, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi (1979).

[17] Benjamin J.R. EPRI Report NP-5930, Electric Power Research Institute, California (1988).

[18] Sarma S.K., Yang K.S. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 15 (1987) p.119.

[19] Halldorsson B., Papageorgiou A.S. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 95(4) (2005) p.1276.