Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea (한국지진공학회논문집)

Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea (한국지진공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of Shear Wave Velocity on Seismic Response of Low- and Mid-Rise Reinforced Concrete Frames

전단파 속도가 중저층 철근콘크리트 구조물의 지진 응답에 미치는 영향

  • Kim, Minsun (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University) ;
  • Lee, Chang Seok (Department of Architecture, Honam University) ;
  • Kim, Byungmin (Department of Civil, Urban, Earth, and Environmental Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology) ;
  • Jeon, Jong-Su (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University)
  • 김민선 (한양대학교 건설환경공학과) ;
  • 이창석 (호남대학교 건축학부) ;
  • 김병민 (울산과학기술원 지구환경도시건설공학과) ;
  • 전종수 (한양대학교 건설환경공학과)
  • Received : 2024.05.29
  • Accepted : 2024.06.28
  • Published : 2024.09.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Strong ground motions at specific sites can cause severe damage to structures. Understanding the influence of site characteristics on the dynamic response of structures is crucial for evaluating their seismic performance and mitigating the potential damage caused by site effects. This study investigates the impact of the average shear wave velocity, as a site characteristic, on the seismic response of low-to-medium-rise reinforced concrete buildings. To explore them, one-dimensional soil column models were generated using shear wave velocity profile from California, and nonlinear site response analyses were performed using bedrock motions. Nonlinear dynamic structural analyses were conducted for reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame models based on the regional information. The effect of shear wave velocity on the structural response and surface ground motions was examined. The results showed that strong ground motions tend to exhibit higher damping on softer soils, reducing their intensity, while on stiffer soils, the ground motion intensity tends to amplify. Consequently, the structural response tended to increase on stiffer soils compared to softer soils.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

본 논문은 정부(과학기술정보통신부)의 재원으로 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구(RS-2024-00350220)임. 이에 감사드립니다.

References

  1. Bonamassa O, Vidale JE. Directional site resonances observed from aftershocks of the 18 October 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 1991;81(5):1945-1957.
  2. Stewart JP, Chang SW, Bray JD, Seed RB, Sitar N, Riemer MF. A report on geotechnical aspects of the January 17, 1994 Northridge earthquake. Seismol Res Lett. 1995;66(3):7-19. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.66.3.7
  3. Toda S, Stein RS, Reasenberg PA, Dieterich JH, Yoshida A. Stress transferred by the 1995 Mw=6.9 Kobe, Japan, shock: Effect on aftershocks and future earthquake probabilities. J Geophys Res Solid Earth. 1998;103(B10):24543-24565. https://doi.org/10.1029/98JB00765
  4. Oh HJ, Kim YS. An analytical study on seismic response characteristics considering soil-structure-equipment interaction. EESK J Earthq Eng. 2023 Nov;27(6);253-263. https://doi.org/10.5000/EESK.2023.27.6.253
  5. Kim T, Jeon J-S, Roh H. Seismic response investigation of traffic signal-supporting structures including soil-foundation effects. EESK J Earthq Eng. 2023 Nov;27(6);237-244. https://doi.org/10.5000/EESK.2023.27.6.237
  6. Shim JE, Choi I, Kim JH. Performance-based evaluation of seismic design proposals for RC ordinary moment frames by spectrum revision. EESK J Earthquake Eng. 2022 Sep;26(5);211-217. https://doi.org/10.5000/EESK.2022.26.5.211
  7. Choi Y, Stewart JP. Nonlinear site amplification as function of 30 m shear wave velocity. Earthq Spectra. 2005;21(1):1-30. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1856535
  8. Kim B, Hashash YMA, Stewart JP, Rathje EM, Harmon JA, Musgrove MI, et al. Relative Differences between Nonlinear and Equivalent-Linear 1-D Site Response Analyses. Earthq Spectra. 2016 Aug;32(3):1845-1865. https://doi.org/10.1193/051215EQS068M
  9. Kamal M, Inel M. A new equation for prediction of seismic gap between adjacent buildings located on different soil types. J Build Eng. 2022 Oct;57:104784.
  10. Idriss I. Earthquake ground motions at soft soil sites. International Conferences on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics; Mar 11; St. Louis: University of Missouri; c1991.
  11. Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ. Empirical response spectral attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes. Seismol Res Lett. 1997 Jan;68(1):94-127. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.68.1.94
  12. Rathje EM, Kottke AR, Trent WL. Influence of input motion and site property variabilities on seismic site response analysis. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. 2010 Apr;136(4):607-619. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000255
  13. Karapetrou ST, Fotopoulou SD, Pitilakis KD. Seismic vulnerability assessment of high-rise non-ductile RC buildings considering soil-structure interaction effects. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 2015 Jun; 73:42-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.02.016
  14. Bayraktar A, Hokelekli E. Influences of earthquake input models on nonlinear seismic performances of minaret-foundation-soil interaction systems. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 2020 Dec;139:106368.
  15. Fathi A, Sadeghi A, Emami Azadi MR, Hoveidae N. Assessing the soil-structure interaction effects by direct method on the out-of-plane behavior of masonry structures (case study: Arge-Tabriz). Bull Earthq Eng. 2020 Nov;18:6429-6443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00933-w
  16. Brunelli A, de Silva F, Cattari S. Site effects and soil-foundation-structure interaction: derivation of fragility curves and comparison with codes-conforming approaches for a masonry school. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 2022 Mar;154:107125.
  17. Soltani-Azar S. Evaluation of the seismic response of reinforced concrete buildings based on time-history analysis considering nonlinear soil effects. J Earthq Eng. 2022 Jun 16;1-21.
  18. Cho HI, Manandhar S, Kim DS, Site classification and design response spectra for seismic code provisions - (I) database and site response analysis. EESK J Earthq Eng. 2016 July;20(4);235-243. https://doi.org/10.5000/EESK.2016.20.4.235
  19. Lee JS, The effects of the shear wave velocity of a seismic control point on site response analysis. EESK J Earthq Eng. 2009 Feb;13(1);1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460902813190
  20. Boore DM, Gibbs JF, Rodriguez M. A compendium of P-and S-wave velocities from surface-to-borehole logging: Summary and reanalysis of previously published data and analysis of unpublished data. US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey; c2003.
  21. Kayen R, Carkin B, Minasian D, Tinsley J. Shear wave velocity of the ground near southern California TRINET sites using the spectral analysis of surface waves method (SASW) and parallel-arrayed harmonic-wave sources. US. Geological Survey; c2005.
  22. Thompson EM, Kayen RE, Carkin B, Tanaka H. Surface-wave site characterization at 53 strong-motion recording stations affected by the Parkfield, California, M6.0 earthquake of 28 September 2004. US Geological Survey; c2010.
  23. Jeon J-S, Lowes LN, DesRoches R, Brilakis I. Fragility curves for non-ductile reinforced concrete frames that exhibit different component response mechanisms. Eng Struct. 2015 Feb;85:127-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.12.009
  24. Baker JW, Lin T, Shahi SK, Jayaram N. New ground motion selection procedures and selected motions for the PEER transportation research program. PEER report. 2011;3.
  25. Matasovic N, Vucetic M. Cyclic characterization of liquefiable sands. J Geotech Eng. 1993;119(11):1805-1822. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:11(1805)
  26. Griffiths SC, Cox BR, Rathje EM. Challenges associated with site response analyses for soft soils subjected to high-intensity input ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 2016 Jun;85:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.03.008
  27. Phillips C, Hashash YMA. Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 2009 Jul;29(7):1143-1158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.01.004
  28. Darendeli MB. Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. The University of Texas at Austin; c2001.
  29. Hashash YMA, Musgrove M, Harmon J, Ilhan O, Xing G, Numanoglu O, et al. DEEPSOIL 7, User Manual. Urbana, IL, Board of Trustees of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; c2020.
  30. Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Building Sciences; c2009. 388p. (FEMA P-750). Report No.: P-750.
  31. Haselton CB, Liel AB, Deierlein GG, Dean BS, Chou JH. Seismic collapse safety of reinforced concrete buildings. I: Assessment of ductile Moment frames. J Struct Eng. 2011 Apr 1;137(4):481-91. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000318
  32. American Concrete Institute (ACI), Building code requriements for structural concrete and commentary, ACI 318-02/ACI 318R-02, Farmington Hills; c2002.
  33. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE/SEI 7-02, Reston, VA; c2002.
  34. International Code Council (ICC), International building code. Falls Church, VA; c2003.
  35. McKenna F. OpenSees: a framework for earthquake engineering simulation. Comput Sci Eng. 2011;13(4):58-66. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2011.66
  36. Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H. Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2005;34(12):1489-1511. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.495
  37. 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, PEER Rep, No. 2007/03, Pacific Earhtquake Engineering Reserach Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA; c2008.
  38. Zahn FA. Design of reinforced concrete bridge columns for strength and ductility. Ph.D. thesis, University of Canterbury; c1985.
  39. Tanaka H. Effect of lateral confining reinforcement on the ductile behaviour of reinforced concrete columns. Ph.D. thesis, University of Canterbury; c1990.
  40. Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures. Pearson Education India; c2007.
  41. Kaklamanos J, Baise LG, Thompson EM, Dorfmann L. Comparison of 1D linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models at six KiK-net validation sites. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 2015 Feb;69:207-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.10.016
  42. Stewart JP , Afshari K, Hashash YM. Guidelines for performing hazard-consistent one-dimensional ground response analysis for ground motion prediction. Peer Rep. 2014;16:117.
  43. USGS Earthquake Hazard Toolbox. [cited 2024 Apr 23]. Available from: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/nshmp/
  44. Borcherdt RD. Empirical evidence for acceleration-dependent amplification factors. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 2002;92(2):761-782. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120010170
  45. Stewart JP, Seyhan E. Semi-Empirical Nonlinear Site Amplification and its Application in NEHRP Site Factors. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center; c2013 Nov.