The effect of near-fault directivity on building seismic collapse risk

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Volumn 41, Issue 10, 2012, Pages 1391-1409

  Champion, Casey ^a   Liel, Abbie ^b  

^a ZFA Structural Engineers   (United States)

^b UCB 450   (United States)

Author keywords

Building collapse; Forward directivity; Near fault; Pulse like

Indexed keywords

BUILDING CODES; BUILDINGS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DEGRADATION; SEISMIC DESIGN; SEISMOLOGY;

BUILDING CODE PROVISIONS; BUILDING COLLAPSE; BUILDING SIMULATION MODEL; DIRECTIVITY; FAR-FIELD REGION; GROUND MOTIONS; INCREMENTAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS; NEAR-FAULT; PAST AND PRESENT; PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENTS; PULSE PERIOD; PULSE-LIKE; RC FRAMES; STIFFNESS DEGRADATION; STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE; TIME HISTORY; VELOCITY PULSE;

RISKS;

BUILDING; COLLAPSE STRUCTURE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING; FAULT; GROUND MOTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEISMIC RESPONSE;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84864301428     PISSN: 00988847     EISSN: 10969845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.1188     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Somerville PG, Smith NF, Graves RW, Abrahamson NA. Modification of Empirical Strong Ground Motion Attenuation Relations to Include the Amplitude and Duration Effects of Rupture Directivity. Seismological Research Letters 1997; 68(1):199-222.
2. Iervolino I, Cornell CA. Probability of Occurrence of Velocity Pulses in Near-Source Ground Motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2008; 98(5):2262-2277.
3. Haselton CB, Liel AB, Deierlein GG, Dean BS, Chou JH. Seismic Collapse Safety of Reinforced Concrete Buildings: I. Assessment of Ductile Moment Frames. Journal of Structural Engineering 2011; 137(4):481-491.
4. Liel AB, Haselton CB, Deierlein GG. Seismic Collapse Safety of Reinforced Concrete Buildings: II. Comparative Assessment of Non-Ductile and Ductile Moment Frames. Journal of Structural Engineering 2011; 137(4):492-502.
5. Chopra AK, Chintanapakdee C. Comparing response of SDF systems to near-fault and far-fault earthquake motions in the context of spectral regions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2001; 30:1769-1789.
6. Luco N, Ellingwood BR, Hamburger RO et al. Risk-Targeted versus Current Seismic Design Maps for the Conterminous United States. SEAOC 2007 Convention Proceedings, 2007.
7. Mavroeidis GP, Dong G, Papageorgiou AS. Near-fault ground motions and the response of elastic and inelastic single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2004; 33:1023-1049.
8. Tothong P, Cornell CA, Baker JW. Explicit Directivity-Pulse Inclusion in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis. Earthquake Spectra 2007; 23(4):867-891.
9. Malhotra P. Response of Buildings to Near-Field Pulse-Like Ground Motions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1999; 28:1309-1326.
10. MacRae GA, Morrow DV, Roeder CW. Near-Fault Ground Motion Effects on Simple Structures. Journal of Structural Engineering 2001; 127(9):996-1004.
11. Luco N, Cornell CA. Structure-Specific Scalar Intensity Measures for Near-Source and Ordinary Earthquake Ground Motions. Earthquake Spectra 2007; 23(2):357-392.
12. Tothong P, Cornell CA. Structural performance assessment under near-source pulse-like ground motions using advanced ground motion intensity measures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2008; 37:1013-1037.
13. Krawinkler H, Medina R, Alavi B. Seismic drift and ductility demands and their dependence on ground motions. Engineering Structures 2003; 25:637-653.
14. Alavi B, Krawinkler H. Behavior of moment-resisting frame structures subjected to near-fault ground motions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2004; 33:687-706.
15. Hall JF, Heaton TH, Halling MW, Wald DJ. Near-Source Ground Motion and its Effects on Flexible Buildings. Earthquake Spectra 1995; 11(4):569-605.
16. Akkar S, Yazgan U, Gulkan P. Drift Estimates in Frame Buildings Subjected to Near-Fault Ground Motions. Journal of Structural Engineering 2005; 131(7):1014-1024.
17. Baker JW, Cornell CA. Vector-valued intensity measures for pulse-like near-fault ground motions. Engineering Structures 2008; 30:1048-1057.
18. Longjun X, Rodriguez-Marek A, Lili X. Design spectra including the effect of rupture directivity in the near-fault region. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 2006; 5(2):159-170.
19. Huang YN, Whittaker AS, Luco N. Maximum Spectral Demands in the Near-Fault Region. Earthquake Spectra 2008; 24(1):319-341.
20. Tothong P, Luco N. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36:1837-1860.
21. Chioccarelli E, Iervolino I. Near-source seismic demand and pulse-like records: A discussion for L'Aquila earthquake. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2010; 39:1039-1062.
22. Ruiz-Garcia J. Inelastic Displacement Ratios for Seismic Assessment of Structures Subjected to Forward-Directivity Near-Fault Ground Motions. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2011; 15:449-468.
23. Iwan WD. Drift Spectrum: Measure of Demand for Earthquake Ground Motions. Journal of Structural Engineering 1997; 123(4):397-404.
24. Yamada M, Olsen AH, Heaton TH. Statistical Features of Short-Period and Log-Period Near-Source Ground Motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2009; 99(6):3264-3274.
25. Sehatti R, Rodriguez-Marek A, Elgawady M, Cofer WF. Effects of near-fault ground motions and equivalent pulses on multi-story structures. Engineering Structures 2011; 33(3):767-779.
26. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. NGA Database. [Accessed on June 26, 2009].
27. Baker JW. Quantitative Classification of Near-Fault Ground Motions Using Wavelet Analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2007; 97(5):1486-1501.
28. Applied Technology Council. Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors (FEMA P695). FEMA: Redwood City, CA, 2009.
29. Champion C. The Effect of Near-Fault Directivity on Building Seismic Collapse Risk. MS Thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder, 2010.
30. Haselton CB, Baker JW, Liel AB, Deierlein GG. Accounting for Ground Motion Spectral Shape Characteristics in Structural Collapse Assessment Through an Adjustment for Epsilon. Journal of Structural Engineering 2011; 137(3):332-344.
31. Haselton CB, Deierlein GG. Assessing Seismic Collapse Safety of Modern Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings. Blume Center Technical Report No. 156, 2007.
32. International Code Council. International Building Code. Washington, DC, 2003.
33. American Society of Civil Engineers. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-05); 2005.
34. American Concrete Institute. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02); 2002.
35. Liel AB, Deierlein GG. Assessing the Collapse Risk of California's Existing Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures: Metrics for Seismic Safety Decisions. Blume Center Technical Report No. 166, 2008.
36. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. OpenSees (Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation). Berkeley, CA; 2006. [Accessed on June 26, 2009].
37. Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H. Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2005; 34:1489-1511.
38. Haselton CB, Liel AB, Lange ST, Deierlein GG. Beam-Column Element Model Calibrated for Predicting Flexural Response Leading to Global Collapse of RC Frame Buildings. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center 2007/03, University of California at Berkeley; 2008.
39. Ghannoum WM, Moehle JP, Bozorgnia Y. Analytical Collapse Study of Lightly Confined Reinforced Concrete Frames Subjected to Northridge Earthquake Ground Motions. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2008; 12(7):1105-1119.
40. Elwood K. Modeling failures in existing reinforced concrete columns. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 2004; 31(5):846-859.
41. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental Dynamic Analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2002; 31:491-514.
42. Liel AB, Haselton CB, Deierlein GG, Baker JW. Incorporating Modeling Uncertainties in the Assessment of Seismic Collapse Risk of Buildings. Structural Safety 2009; 31(2):197-211.
43. Dolsek M. Incremental dynamic analysis with consideration of modeling uncertainties. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2009; 38:805-825.
44. Igusa T, Buonopane SG, Ellingwood BR. Bayesian analysis of uncertainty for structural engineering applications. Structural Safety 2002; 24:165-186.
45. Fragiadaksi M, Vamvatsikos D. Performance Uncertainty Estimation using Static Pushover Methods. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2009; 00:1-6.
46. th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Singapore, 2007; Paper No. 56.
47. Luco N, Bazzurro P. Does amplitude scaling of ground motion records result in biased nonlinear structural drift responses? Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36:1813-1835.
48. Shahi SK, Baker JW. An Empirically Calibrated Framework for Including the Effects of Near Fault Directivity in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2011; 101(2):742-755.
49. Somerville PG. Magnitude Scaling of the Near Fault Rupture Directivity Pulse. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 2003; 137(1):201-212.
50. Youngs RR, Coppersmith K. Implications of fault slip rates and earthquake recurrence models to probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1985; 75(4):939-964.
51. Building Seismic Safety Council. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 450, 2003 Edition). FEMA: Washington, DC, 2004.