The Effects of Rotational Components of Near-Fault Earthquakes on Self-Centering Base-Rocking Walls

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Candidate in Earthquake Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Nowadays, self-centering (SC) lateral resistant systems are able to reduce residual displacement and post-earthquake repairing costs. By concentrating damages on fuse elements, these systems reduce repair costs and allow immediate occupancy. To resist against lateral load, the SC systems have two mechanisms including: 1) restoring force mechanism, 2) energy dissipation (ED) mechanism. Both mechanisms are needed to provide flag shape pushover behavior. The restoring force mechanism provided with post-tensioned (PT) prestressed core to supply prestressed used unbounded tendons. The reason using unbounded tendons is to prevent their yielding suddenly and creating cracks in core. Usually, the restoring force mechanism is accompanied by gap opening in systems. This gap opening can cause damage to other structural and nonstructural members. Then, the system should be isolated in location of joints. The ED mechanism provided with fuses. Fuses can have different types, including:  1) hysteric, 2) viscous, and 3) shape memory alloy (SMA) dampers. Among these dampers, hysteric elements are more used due to their low price than other fuses. The SC systems implemented in different types, including: 1) rocking cores, or frames, 2) moment frames, and 3) braces. The moment frames and braces need specially detailing, and expert worker for building and construction. Furthermore, rocking frames needed total system rotated that is constructive details difficult. Among these systems, rocking cores have mostly been used and studied. The rocking cores are made with three cores of concrete shear wall, wooden wall and bracing frame.
According to seismic codes, lateral resistant system must have the necessary strength to withstand earthquakes. The records of earthquakes have three translational and three rotational components. Usually, the structures investigated under translational component and rotational component ignored. To produce the rotational component, there are two methods, including single station procedure (SSP) and multiple stations procedure (MSP) or geodetic method. The SSP method extracts the rotational components from the translational ones. In this method, many researchers employ the information of a single station individually to obtain the rotational components. In the MSP method, the rotational components use translational recorded data by the numerous ground motions distributed in a closely dense zone. Utilizing this method requires a vast range of information of many ground motions, which was unreachable for the authors of this manuscript. Therefore in this research, to produce the rotational components of ground motions use SSP method. Furthermore, near-fault ground motions were considered for time history analysis. Near-field ground motions have some characterizations that make them different from far-field ground motions. The most remarkable characterization of these records includes: 1) distance less than 10 km from the fault, 2) the existence of long-period pulses in their velocity time series, 3) high Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA), and 4) high Peak Ground Velocity (PGV).
In current study, the behavior of SC base-rocking walls under 25 near pulse-like ground motions was investigated. The structures were studied in two states depending on considering or ignoring the rotational component of the ground motions. In order to compare and consider the rotational components, six seismic load combinations were considered. 2D frames of 4-, 8-, 12-, 16-, and -20 stories were examined. Nonlinear time-history analyses were performed utilizing software. The results showed that considering the rotational component of earthquake can increase structural responses. In this regard, the maximum acceleration, inter-story drift, moment, shear force, roof drift and maximum tendon stress ratio were increased up to 24.6, 9.3, 10.4, 9.6, 623 and 11%, respectively.
Furthermore, the results suggested that as the height of the structure increases, the response values of maximum roof drifts and maximum stress ratio increase. In SC base-rocking wall systems studied, the maximum residual roof drift was equal to 0.01 %.
 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Masrom, M.A. and Hamid, N.H.A. (2020) Review on the rocking wall systems as a self-centering mechanism and its interaction with floor diaphragm in precast concrete structures. Am. J. Solids Struct., 17(6).
  2. Mohammadi Dehcheshmeh, E. and Broujerdian, V. (2021) Seismic Design Coefficients of Self-Centering Multiple Rocking Walls Subjected to Effect of Far and Near-Field Earthquakes. Infrastruct. Res., 7(1) (in progress), doi: 10.22091/cer.2021.7025.1257.
  3. Broujerdian V. and Mohammadi Dehcheshmeh, E. (2021) Investigation of the Behavior of Self-Centering Base- and Double- Rocking Walls Subjected to Far-Field and Near-Field Earthquakes. Ferdowsi Civ. Eng., doi: 10.22067/jfcei.2021. 68094.1008.
  4. Broujerdian, V. and Mohammadi Dehcheshmeh, E. (2022) Locating the rocking section in self-centering bi-rocking walls to achieve the best seismic performance. Earthq. Eng., doi: 10.1007/s10518-022-01325-y.
  5. Mohammadi Dehcheshmeh, E. and Broujerdian, V. (2022) Determination of optimal behavior of self-centering multiple-rocking walls subjected to far-field and near-field ground motions. Build. Eng., p. 103509, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021. 103509.
  6. Perez, F.D.J. (1998) Lateral Load Behavior and Design of Unbonded Post-Tensioned Precast Concrete Walls with Ductile Vertical Joint Connectors.
  7. Eatherton, M.R., Ma, X., Krawinkler, H., Mar, D., Billington, S., Hajjar, J.F., and Deierlein, G.G. (2014) Design concepts for controlled rocking of self-centering steel-braced frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 140(11), p. 4014082.
  8. Aghagholizadeh, M. and Makris, N. (2018) Seismic Response of a Yielding Structure Coupled with a Rocking Wall. Struct. Eng., 144(2), 04017196, doi: 10.1093/gbe/evr001.
  9. Wiebe, L. and Christopoulos, C. (2009) Mitigation of higher mode effects in base-rocking systems by using multiple rocking sections. Earthq. Eng., 13(1) SUPPL. 1, 83-108, doi: 10.1080/13632460902813315.
  10. Kurama, Y. and Pessiki, S. (1999) Seismic behavior and design of unbonded post-tensioned precast concrete walls. PCI Journal, 44, 72-89.
  11. Kurama, Y.C. (2001) Simplified seismic design approach for friction-damped unbonded post-tensioned precast concrete walls. ACI Struct. J., 98(5), 705-716.
  12. Restrepo, J.I. and Rahman, A. (2007) Seismic Performance of Self-Centering Structural Walls Incorporating Energy Dissipators. Struct. Eng., 133(11), 1560-1570, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:11(1560).
  13. Holden, T., Restrepo, J., and Mander, J.B. (2003) Seismic Performance of Precast Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Walls. Struct. Eng., 129(3), 286-296, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129: 3(286).
  14. Perez, F.J., Pessiki, S., and Sause, R. (2004) Seismic design of unbonded concrete walls with vertical joint connectors. PCI Journal, 49(1), 58-79, doi: 10.15554/pcij.01012004.58.79.
  15. Henry, R.S., Aaleti, S., Sritharan, S., and Ingham, J.M. (2010) Concept and finite-element modeling of new steel shear connectors for self-centering wall systems. Eng. Mech., 136(2), 220-229, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000071.
  16. Henry, R.S., Brooke, N.J., Sritharan, S., and Ingham, J.M. (2012) Defining concrete com-pressive strain in unbonded post-tensioned walls. ACI Struct. J., 109(1), 101-112.
  17. Henry, R.S., Sritharan, S., and Ingham, J.M. (2016) Finite element analysis of the PreWEC self-centering concrete wall system. Struct., 115, 28-41, doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.02.029.
  18. Henry, R.S., Sritharan, S., and Ingham, J.M. (2016) Residual drift analyses of realistic self-centering concrete wall systems. Struct., 10(2), 409-428, doi: 10.12989/eas.2016.10.2.409.
  19. Smith, B.J. and Kurama, Y.C. (2014) Seismic design guidelines for solid and perforated hybrid precast concrete shear walls. PCI Journal, 59(3), 43-59, doi: 10.15554/pcij.06012014.43.59.
  20. Smith, B.J., Kurama, Y.C., and McGinnis, M.J. (2015) Perforated hybrid precast shear walls for seismic regions. ACI Struct. J., 112(3), 359-370, doi: 10.14359/51687410.
  21. Mpampatsikos, V.M., Bressanelli, E., Belleri, A., and Nascimbene, R.A (2020) Non-dimensional parametric approach for the design of PT tendons and mild steel dissipaters in precast rocking walls. Struct., 212, p. 110513.
  22. Gu, A., Zhou, Y., Xiao, Y., Li, Q., and Qu, G. (2019) Experimental study and parameter analysis on the seismic performance of self-centering hybrid reinforced concrete shear walls. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 116, 409-420.
  23. Hu, X., Lu, Q., and Yang, Y. (2018) Rocking Response Analysis of Self-Centering Walls under Ground Excitations. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 1-12.
  24. Buddika, H.A.D.S. and Wijeyewickrema, A.C. (2016) Seismic Performance Evaluation of Posttensioned Hybrid Precast Wall-Frame Buildings and Comparison with Shear Wall-Frame Buildings. Struct. Eng., 142(6), doi: 10.1061/ (ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001466.
  25. Broujerdian, V. and Mohammadi Dehcheshmeh, E. (2021) Development of fragility curves for self-centering base-rocking walls subjected to far and near field ground motions. Sharif J. Civ. Eng., doi: 10.24200/j30.2021.57279.2897.
  26. Lu, X., Yang, B., and Zhao, B. (2018) Shake-table testing of a self-centering precast reinforced concrete frame with shear walls. Eng. Eng. Vib., 17(2), 221-233, doi: 10.1007/s11803-018-0436-y.
  27. Sun, T., Kurama, Y.C., Zhang, P., and Ou, J. (2018) Linear-elastic lateral load analysis and seismic design of pin-supported wall-frame struct-ures with yielding dampers. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 47(4), 988-1013, doi: 10.1002/eqe. 3002.
  28. Al-Subaihawi, S. and Pessiki, S. (2019) Static pushover response of spring anchored unbonded post-tensioned rocking systems. Struct., 200, 109582.
  29. Vicencio, F. and Alexander, N.A. (2019) A parametric study on the effect of rotational ground motions on building structural responses. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 118, 191206.
  30. Özşahin, E. and Pekcan, G. (2019) Effect of torsional ground motion on the seismic response of highway bridges. Earthq. Eng., 17(5), 2603-2625.
  31. Sokol, M., Ároch, R., Lamperová, K., Marton, M., and García-Sanz-Calcedo, J. (2021) Parametric analysis of rotational effects in seismic design of tall structures. Sci., 11(2), 597.
  32. Teymoori, E., Abbasi, S., and Moradloo, J. (2018) Seismic analysis of cylindrical ground liquid storage tanks incorporating the effects of rotational components of earthquake. Quranic Knowledge Research, 18(4), 251-264 (in Persian).
  33. Loghman, V., Tajammolian, H., and Khoshnoudian, (2017) Effects of rotational components of earthquakes on seismic responses of triple concave friction pendulum base-isolated structures. J. Vib. Control, 23(9), 1495-1517.
  34. Payganeh M.B. and Mortezaei, A. (2020) Seismic damage assessment of rc buildings subjected to the rotational ground motion records considering soil-structure interaction. Rehabil. Civ. Eng., 8(2), 62-80.
  35. Pennucci, D.G., Calvi, M., and Sullivan, T.J. (2009) Displacement-based design of precast walls with additional dampers. Earthq. Eng., 13(S1), 40-65.
  36. Khanmohammadi, M. and Heydari, S. (2015) Seismic behavior improvement of reinforced concrete shear wall buildings using multiple rocking systems. Struct., 100, 577-589, doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.06.043.
  37. Basu, D., Whittaker, A.S., and Constantinou, M.C. (2012) Characterizing the Rotational Components of Earthquake Ground Motion. MCEER.
  38. Newmark, N.M. (1969) Torsion in Symmetrical Buildings.
  39. Ghafory-Ashtiany, M. and Singh, M.P. (1986) Structural response for six correlated earthquake components. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 14(1), 103-119.
  40. Falamarz-Sheikhabadi, M.R. and Ghafory-Ashtiany, M. (2012) Approximate formulas for rotational effects in earthquake engineering. Seismol., 16(4), 815-827.
  41. Falamarz-Sheikhabadi, M.R. (2014) Simplified relations for the application of rotational com-ponents to seismic design codes. Struct., 59, 141-152.
  42. Falamarz-Sheikhabadi, M.R., Zerva, A., and Ghafory-Ashtiany, M. (2017) Revised seismic intensity parameters for middle-field horizontal and rocking strong ground motions. Struct. Eng., 143(1), 4016155.
  43. Penzien, J. and Watabe, M. (1974) Characteristics of 3-dimensional earthquake ground motions. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 3(4), 365-373.
  44. Castellani, A. and Boffi, G. (1986) Rotational components of the surface ground motion during an earthquake. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 14(5), 751-767.
  45. Spudich, P., Steck, L.K., Hellweg, M., Fletcher, J.B., and Baker, L.M. (1995) Transient stresses at Parkfield, California, produced by the M 7.4 Landers earthquake of June 28, 1992: Observations from the UPSAR dense seismograph array. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 100(B1), 675-690.
  46. Laouami, N. and Labbe, P. (2002) Experimental analysis of seismic torsional ground motion recorded by the LSST-Lotung array. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(12), 2141-2148.
  47. Tajammolian, H. and Khoshnoudian, F. (2018) Acceleration amplification due to rotational components of near-fault earthquakes in triple concave friction pendulum base-isolated structures. J. Civ. Eng., 45(4), 314-327.
  48. Archila, M. (2014) Directionality Effects of Pulse-Like Near Field Ground Motions on Seismic Response of Tall Buildings. University of British Columbia.
  49. FEMA (2009) FEMA P695: Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors. US Department of Homeland Security.
  50. ASCE (2010) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-10).

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 11 May 2021
  • Revise Date: 24 June 2021
  • Accept Date: 31 August 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics