Seismic Damage Assessment of Regular Gravity Design Buildings

Abstract:

During the past earthquakes, different low ductile failure modes are observed in the gravity design structures and thus, the most of existing damage indices may fail to assess the damage of gravity design structures accurately in referring to the two main performance levels: immediate occupancy and ultimate limit state. Therefore, this study investigates the possible damage indices for the damage assessment of gravity design frames. For this purpose, among the existing damage indices in the literature, this study considers the inter-story drift and the natural period based damage indices. In addition, two new damage indices based on the wavelet based energy and the dominant inelastic period of a building are also considered in this study. Furthermore, the damage assessment results from the four damage indices for three gravity design buildings are compared and discussed. From the comparison, linear correlations between the inter-storey drift based damage index and the wavelet energy based index, and dominant inelastic period based damage index are observed. Finally, this study concludes based on the observations that no significant effects of number of inelastic cycles to the damage assessment results for low ductile structures. However, this study also highlights the effects of number of inelastic cycles to the damage for medium and high ductile structures.

• Periodical: Key Engineering Materials (Volumes 569-570)
• Pages: 294-301
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.569-570.294
• Online since: July 2013
• Authors: Caterina Negulescu, Kushan K. Wijesundara, Evelyne Foerster
• Keywords: Damage Indices, Dominant Inelastic Period, Gravity Design Buildings, Inter-Storey Drift, Wavelet Energy

References

[1] Saatcioglu M., Mitchell D., Tinawi R., Gardner N.J., Anthony G. Gillies, Ghobarah A., Anderson D.L. and Lau D. The August 17, 1999, Kocaeli (Turkey) earthquake — damage to structures,. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 28, pp.715-737, (2001).

DOI: 10.1139/l01-043

[2] Cosenza, E., G. Manfredi, and R. Ramasco (1993). The use of damage functionals in earthquake engineering: A comparison between different methods, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 22, pp.855-868.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe.4290221003

[3] Bozorgnia, Y., and V.V. Bertero (2001). Evaluation of damage potential of recorded earthquake ground motion, 96th Annual Meeting of Seismological Society of America, San Francisco, CA, April 17-21, (2001).

[4] Dipasquale, E., Cakmak, A.S., Seismic damage assessment using linear models. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering; No. 4, 9(1990) 194-215.

DOI: 10.1016/s0267-7261(05)80010-7

[5] Chui C.K., An Introduction to Wavelets, Academic Press, New York, (1992).

[6] Minh-Nghi Ta, Joseph Lardiès, 2006. Identification of weak nonlinearities on damping and stiffness by the continuous wavelet transform. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 293: 16–37.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jsv.2005.09.021

[7] OpenSees, UC Regents, 2006, Available at: <http: /opensees. berkeley. edu/>.

[8] Vamvatsikos D., Cornell C.A. (2002). Incremental Dynamic Analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31(3): 491-514.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe.141

[9] Wijesundara K.K., Negulescu C., Foerster E., Monfort Climent D., 2012. Estimation of modal properties of structures through ambient excitation measurements using continuous wavelet transform, 15WCEE, Lisbon, paper no 4110.

[10] Park, Y.J., and A. H-S. Ang (1985). Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 111, No. 4, pp.722-739.

DOI: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(1985)111:4(722)