SEISMIC RESPONSE OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS … · 2018-04-24 · damage and extensive damage...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 647 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 9, Issue 4, April 2018, pp. 647–659, Article ID: IJCIET_09_04_073

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=4

ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

SEISMIC RESPONSE OF REINFORCED

CONCRETE BUILDINGS UNDER MAINSHOCK

– AFTERSHOCK EARTHQUAKE SEQUENCE

Aliya Ilyas, M.A. Azeem and Hashim Mohiuddin

Department of Civil Engineering,

Deccan College of Engineering & Technology, Hyderabad, India

ABSTRACT

This study investigates the effect of aftershocks by using fourteen mainshock (MS)

and mainshock-aftershock (MS-AS) earthquake sequences applied to three low rise

and three high rise building models. The three models consisted of a moment resisting

frame structure, a structure with shear walls in the periphery and a structure with

internal and external shear walls designed as per IS 1893:2002 specifications. The

performance of the buildings was studied using nonlinear time history analysis and

response parameters like story drift, story shear and accelerations were compared.

The story drifts were compared for the limit states including slight damage, moderate

damage and extensive damage to show the seismic responses among the six buildings.

Key words: Aftershock ground motions, seismic design, limit state damage.

Cite this Article: Aliya Ilyas, M.A. Azeem and Hashim Mohiuddin, Seismic

Response of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Under Mainshock – Aftershock

Earthquake Sequence, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology,

9(4), 2018, pp. 647–659.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=4

1. INTRODUCTION

Earthquakes are uncommon characteristic fiascos which have extreme societal results

regarding fatalities and setbacks, money related misfortunes and business interference when

they happen. An aftershock is a smaller seismic event that happens after a past substantial

quake, in a similar territory of the mainshock. In the event that an aftershock is bigger than the

mainshock, the aftershock is re-assigned as the mainshock and the original mainshock is re-

assigned as a foreshock. Aftershocks can significantly affect the dynamic response of a

structure in terms of irreversible plastic strains and aggregated destruction, as they influence a

structure already debilitated amid a mainshock. The ground movements from aftershocks

demonstrate the commonly high event to event changeability, inferring the potential for

bigger movements from small magnitudes. The number, size, vicinity and inconstancy of

aftershocks may represent a significant ground motionhazard. Aftershock ground movements

may cause weakening as well as collapse of structures already damaged (however not yet

repaired) by the mainshock.

Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Under Mainshock – Aftershock Earthquake Sequence


1.1. Challenges of Aftershock Risk Analysis

Due to the expanded mean rate of aftershocks, the variability in ground motions and the

damage sustained by the structure, aftershocks of smaller extents can possibly produce larger

site ground movement intensity measure values and bigger engineering demand parameter

values than the mainshock.

In view of this potential for bigger ground motionsdue toaftershocks, even structures that

have not been damaged by the mainshock have some probability of being damaged because of

the event of an aftershock. Mainshock damaged structures are significantly more susceptible

to incremental damage because of aftershocks on the grounds that their lessened structural

capacity diminishes the threshold of the ground motion intensityneeded to bring on additional

damage.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Lew et al. (2000) reported the collapse of a mainshock-damaged gasoline service station in an

aftershock in the Taiwan Chi-Chi earthquake. A nine story reinforced concrete building which

had already been severely damaged in the 1995Japan Kobe earthquake, is also reported in

Whittaker et al. (1997) to have overturned due to the occurrence of an aftershock. Thus,

before the completion of repair, a mainshock-damaged building could be progressively further

damaged due to the aftershock ground motions experienced at the site, thus incurring more

financial losses, becoming more susceptible to life-threatening collapse, causing evacuation or

delaying re-occupancy. All these characteristics need to be addressed when developing the

probabilistic assessment of the decision variables in the aftershock environment.

Earthquakes are the principal cause for degradation of the properties of structural elements

in reinforced concrete (RC) buildings. It is true that most major damages come with the

mainshock or first earthquake can also cause severe damage to the already damaged

buildings, thus leading to economical loss. The first few days after the occurrence of a strong

earthquake are crucial in decision-making between different actions such as search and

rescue, evacuation, inspection, building stabilization, and repair, retrieval of possessions, or

re-occupation in an aftershock prone building. In current seismic codes, buildings are

designed for one-time earthquake without considering the effect of multiple earthquakes.

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. Building Description

A total of six buildings; fixed base, fixed base with shear wall at the periphery and fixed base

with both exterior and interior shear walls were evaluated for the purpose of comparison.

These building models were subjected to a set of fourteen mainshock seismic sequences and

another set of fourteen mainshock-aftershock sequences. A total of six building models were

used for the purpose of this study. The geometric properties of buildings models are indicated

in Table 1. Table 1 Geometric properties of building models



M1FB and M2FB uses the moment resisting frame which consist of beams and columns

that are rigidly connected. M1FB has twenty columns, fourteen in exterior walls and six in

interior walls. M2FB has thirty columns, eighteen in exterior walls and twelve in interior

walls.M1SW1 and M2SW1 uses a combination of shear wall and MRF where the shear walls

are located only at on the exterior of the floor plan. M1SW1 has twelve columns six in

interior and six exterior walls and M2SW1 has twenty-two columns, ten at the exterior walls,

twelve in interior walls.M1SW2 and M2SW2 uses shear walls to resist the lateral loads both

internally and externally. External shear walls have same arrangement has M1SW1 and

M2SW1, but interior columns are replaced by shear walls. M1SW2 has six columns in

exterior walls and M2SW2 has ten columns in exterior walls, six columns in interior

walls.The building models were designed using Indian Standards considering seismic forces

using Equivalent Static Design procedure. The plan of the building models is as indicated in

Figures 1 to 6.

Figure 1 Plan dimensions of model M1FB Figure 2 Plan dimensions of model M1SW1

Figure 3 Plan dimensions of model M1SW2 Figure 4 Plan dimensions of model M2FB

Figure 5 Plan dimensions of model M2SW1 Figure 6 Plan dimensions of model M2SW2

3.2. Acceptance Criteria for Different Damage States

Damage states are defined separately for structural and non-structural systems of a building.

HAZUS-MH 2.1 describes the damage by one of four discrete damage states: slight,

moderate, extensive, and complete. Loss functions relate the physical condition of the

building to various loss parameters (i.e., direct economic loss, casualties, and loss of function)

as shown in Table 2.



Table 2 Average inter-story drift ratio for structural damage states (HAZUS-MH 2.1)

Model building type Structural Damage States

Slight Moderate Extensive Collapse

Low rise building –High- code design level

Concrete moment frame (C1) 0.005 0.010 0.030 0.080

Concrete Shear wall (C2) 0.004 0.010 0.030 0.080

Mid-rise buildings

All mid-rise building types 2/3*LR 2/3*LR 2/3*LR 2/3*LR

High rise buildings

All high-rise building types 1/2*LR 1/2*LR 1/2*LR 1/2*LR

3.3. Mainshock-Aftershock Sequences

A suite of recorded MS-AS sequences are chosen and utilized as ground motions for

examination. A mainshock by and large is trailed by various aftershocks, which implies the

most precise approach to consider the MS-AS impact is to employ all the aftershock ground

motions as per their occurrence. Lee and Foutch (2004) found that the repeated

indistinguishable quake just made marginally more damage to structures than the one same

earthquake did. Thus, in this study, utilizing just a single biggest aftershock in a MS-AS

sequence will yield results with adequate exactness. The same method is also employed in the

research of Li and Ellingwood (2007). Therefore, the “largest” aftershock is considered as the

one with the largest magnitude in the aftershock sequences.

The fourteen earthquake records obtained were combined such that each sequence consists

of a mainshock motion, a twenty-second time interval and a following aftershock motion. The

structure is in static condition before subjecting to the aftershock. The aftershocks that are

selected in this investigation for the most part happened within seven days after the

mainshock, which suggests the building would not have been repaired when the aftershock

occurred because there is not enough time Therefore, using the back-to-back earthquake

records is felt to be realistic. The MS-AS accelerograms are illustrated in Figures 7 and 8. All

the details of the MS sequences are represented in Table 3 and AS sequences in Table 4.

T Im e , s

Ac

ce

ler

atio

n,

g

0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0

-0 .2

-0 .1

0 .0

0 .1

0 .2

S ta t io n : K a n tip a th

A SM S

Figure 7 Accelerograms of Nepal Earthquake, 2015.



T Im e , s

Ac

ce

ler

atio

n,

g

0 2 5 5 0 7 5 1 0 0 1 2 5 1 5 0 1 7 5

-0 .1 0

-0 .0 5

0 .0 0

0 .0 5

0 .1 0

S ta tio n : S ik u a i I s la n d

A SM S

Figure 8 Accelerograms of West Sumatra Earthquake, 2007.

Table 3 Mainshock Earthquake records used in the study

Earthquake Name Year Station Name Magnitude Component PGA PGV

Cerro Prieto 2008 Calexico 5.4 360 0.127 0.081

Cerro Prieto 2008 Meloland 5.4 90 0.063 0.041

Chalfant Valley 1986 Chalfant 6.2 360 0.399 0.402

Chamoli 1999 Gopeshwar 6.8 N70W 0.186 0.259

Chamoli 1999 Uttarkashi 6.8 N72E 0.373 0.421

Livermore 1980 San Ramon 5.8 360 0.244 0.317

Nepal 25 Kantipath 7.8 90 0.159 1.045

Nepal 2015 Kantipath 7.8 360 0.187 0.965

Parkfield 2004 Parkfield 6.0 90 1.252 0.619

Cape Mendocino 1992 Petrolia 7.0 90 0.719 0.912

Cape Mendocino 1992 Shelter Cove 7.0 90 0.178 0.066

South Napa 2014 Crockett 6.0 90 0.529 0.120

West Sumatra 2007 Sikuai Island 8.4 90 0.038 0.039


Table 4 Aftershock Earthquake records used in the study

Earthquake Name Year Station Name Magnitude Component PGA PGV

Cerro Prieto 2008 Calexico 5.1 360 0.045 0.03

Cerro Prieto 2008 Meloland 5.1 90 0.025 0.016

Chalfant Valley 1986 Chalfant 5.6 360 0.102 0.049

Chamoli 1999 Gopeshwar >5 N70W 0.041 0.023

Chamoli 1999 Uttarkashi >5 N72E 0.066 0.032

Livermore 1980 San Ramon 5.8 360 0.443 0.425

Nepal 2015 Kantipath 6.6 90 0.048 0.100

Nepal 2015 Kantipath 6.6 360 0.051 0.100

Parkfield 2004 Parkfield 5.0 90 0.097 0.046

Cape Mendocino 1992 Petrolia 6.6 90 0.425 0.275

Cape Mendocino 1992 Shelter Cove 6.6 90 0.303 0.099

South Napa 2014 Crockett 3.9 90 0.005 0.001



3.4. Ground Motion Scaling

In order to reduce the difference between the design response spectrum and ground motions’

response spectrum, the ground motions are scaled between 0.2T to 1.5T, where T1 is the

fundamental period of the building. The IS 1893 Response Spectrum for seismic zone factor



0.36 and Soil type III is considered as the design response spectrum. The SeismoMatch

software was used in the ground motion scaling. Response spectral acceleration of the original

fourteen ground motion pairs are shown in Figure 9. The response spectrum of the matched

ground motions is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 9 Response spectrum of the original ground motion pairs and the design response spectrum.

Figure 10 Response spectrum of the ground motion pairs matched to 0.2T1 to 1.5T1

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1. Modal Results

Although only first three modes are shown, the number of mode shapes considered for the

building models M1 and M2 were 12 and 18 respectively. The mode shapes were considered

such that at least 95% mass participation occurs. Table 5 lists fundamental time periods of the

building models in orthogonal and torsional directions used in the study. The modal analysis

results indicate that increasing the amount of shear wall in the building resulted in decreased

fundamental period due to increased stiffness.

Table 5 Time periods for building models used in the study

Mode Time Period

M1FB M1SW1 M1SW2 M2FB M2SW1 M2SW2

1

(Sway) 1.634 0.556 0.416 2.931 1.475 1.31

2

(Sway) 1.487 0.444 0.375 2.775 1.423 1.067

3

(Torsion) 1.401 0.35 0.329 2.516 1.019 0.94



4.2. Structure Results

The different response parameters like drift, story shear and accelerations are compared to

assess the buildings performance when subjected to random MS seismic events and MS-AS

seismic events. These response parameters are computed as the average resulting from the

numerical stimulations for each building models subjected to the earthquake sets discussed in

the previous section. The effect of the acceleration to velocity (a/v) ratio is also illustrated in

the results.

4.2.1. Drift Results

Inter story drift is defined as the difference between the roof and floor displacements of any

given story. The limiting drift ratios for different damage states are also indicated in the

figures. From the Figures 11 to 16, it is clear that from the drift criteria for slight damage limit

state the buildings M1FB, M1SW1, M2FB, M2SW1 and M2SW2 have similar performance

for low a/v earthquake records whereas for high a/v earthquake records M1FB, M1SW1 and

M2FB show similar performance and exceed the limit prescribed. The building models

M1SW2, M2SW1 and M2SW2 have higher performance i.e., they require higher earthquake

intensity to reach slight damage limit state. At moderate damage limit state, it can be observed

that for model M1, M1SW2 is the best building configuration and M1FB is the worst and for

model M2, M1SW2 is the best building configuration and M1FB is the worst illustrating that

increasing shear wall effectively increases the seismic performance. At extensive damage

limit state, when subjected to low a/v records, M2FB just satisfies the limit state and rest of

the models show higher performance. For high a/v records all the models satisfy the extensive

damage limit state.It can also be observed that the buildings having both external and internal

shear walls seem to be more stable with significant difference compared to MRF buildings

and buildings having shear walls on in its periphery. Since the fixed base models have already

reached the extensive damage state the difference in the story drifts due to MS and MS-AS is

low when compared to the models with shear walls. It is also observed that the damage is less

when the buildings are subjected to high a/v records and more when subjected to low a/v

records. Therefore, shear wall configuration is as important as shear wall amount in

improving the seismic responses, especially at the extensive and collapse limit state.

D r if t

No

rm

ali

ze

d H

eig

ht

0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 5 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 2 0

0 .0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

L o w a /v M S

L o w a /v M S -A S

H ig h a /v M S -A S

H ig h a /v M S

Sli

gh

t D

amag

e

Mo

de

rate

Da

ma

ge

Ex

ten

siv

e D

am

ag

e

D r if t

No

rm

ali

ze

d H

eig

ht

0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 2 0 .0 0 4 0 .0 0 6 0 .0 0 8

0 .0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

L o w a /v M S

L o w a /v M S -A S


H ig h a /v M S

Sli

gh

t D

am

ag

e

Mo

de

rate

Da

ma

ge

Figure 11 Story drifts for model M1FB Figure 12 Story drifts for model M1SW1



D r if t

No

rm

ali

ze

d H

eig

ht

0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 2 0 .0 0 4 0 .0 0 6

0 .0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

L o w a /v M S

L o w a /v M S -A S


H ig h a /v M S

Sli

gh

t D

am

ag

e Mo

de

rate

Da

ma

ge

D r if t

No

rm

ali

ze

d H

eig

ht

0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 5 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 2 0 0 .0 2 5

0 .0

0 .1

0 .2

0 .3

0 .4

0 .5

0 .6

0 .7

0 .8

0 .9

1 .0

L o w a /v M S

L o w a /v M S -A S


H ig h a /v M S

Sli

gh

t D

am

ag

e

Mo

de

rate

Da

ma

ge

Ex

ten

siv

e D

am

ag

e

Figure 13 Story drifts for model M1SW2 Figure 14 Story drifts for model M2FB

D r if t

No

rm

ali

ze

d H

eig

ht

0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 5 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 2 0

0 .0

0 .1

0 .2

0 .3

0 .4

0 .5

0 .6

0 .7

0 .8

0 .9

1 .0

L o w a /v M S

L o w a /v M S -A S


H ig h a /v M S

Sli

gh

t D

am

ag

e

Mo

de

rate

Da

ma

ge

Ex

ten

siv

e D

am

ag

e

D r if t

No

rm

ali

ze

d H

eig

ht

0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 2 0 .0 0 4 0 .0 0 6 0 .0 0 8 0 .0 1 0

0 .0

0 .1

0 .2

0 .3

0 .4

0 .5

0 .6

0 .7

0 .8

0 .9

1 .0

L o w a /v M S

L o w a /v M S -A S


H ig h a /v M S

Sli

gh

t D

am

ag

e

Mo

de

rate

Da

ma

ge

Figure 15 Story drifts for model M2SW1 Figure 16 Story drifts for model M2SW2

4.2.2. Story Shear Results

S to r e y S h e a r , k N

No

rm

ali

ze

d H

eig

ht

0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 5 0 0

0 .0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

L o w a /v M S -A S


L o w a /v M S

H ig h a /v M S

Figure 17 Story shear for model M1FB



ii. Y D irection

No

rm

ali

ze

d H

eig

ht

0 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0

0 .0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

L o w a /v M S -A S


L o w a /v M S

H ig h a /v M S

Figure 18 Story shear for model M1SW1


No

rm

ali

ze

d H

eig

ht

0 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0

0 .0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

L o w a /v M S -A S


L o w a /v M S

H ig h a /v M S



No

rm

ali

ze

d H

eig

ht

0 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0

0 .0

0 .1

0 .2

0 .3

0 .4

0 .5

0 .6

0 .7

0 .8

0 .9

1 .0

L o w a /v M S -A S


L o w a /v M S

H ig h a /v M S

Figure 20 Story shear for model M2FB




No

rm

ali

ze

d H

eig

ht

0 3 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 0

0 .0

0 .1

0 .2

0 .3

0 .4

0 .5

0 .6

0 .7

0 .8

0 .9

1 .0

L o w a /v M S -A S


L o w a /v M S

H ig h a /v M S



No

rm

ali

ze

d H

eig

ht

0 3 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0

0 .0

0 .1

0 .2

0 .3

0 .4

0 .5

0 .6

0 .7

0 .8

0 .9

1 .0

L o w a /v M S -A S


L o w a /v M S

H ig h a /v M S


From the Figures 17 to 22it can be seen that the story shear decreases as the height of the

building increases. For the building model M1, it can be observed that the increase in story

shear at the top for the fixed base building M1FB, when subjected to MS and MS-AS

earthquake sequence is 0% and 11.84% for low a/v and high a/v records. For model M1SW1,

the difference is 7.17% and 7.45% for low a/v and high a/v records. A related development is

detected for the model M1SW2 that is 11.93% and 11.73% for low a/v ratio and high a/v

simultaneously.

In the same way, for the building model M2, it has been observed that there is a decrease

in the story shear at the top for the fixed base building M2FB, when subjected to MS and MS-

AS earthquake sequence is 1.27% and 22.84 %for low a/ v and high a/v records. Even for

model M2SW1, the iteration is 0.06% and 13.62% low a/v and high a/v records. In the similar

manner further values are obtained for M2SW2 as 0.69% and 16.14%for low a/v and high a/v

respectively.



4.2.3. Acceleration Results

From the above Figures 23 to 28 the acceleration increases as the height of the building

increases. For the building model M1, it can be observed that the increase in the moments at

the top for the fixed base building M1FB, when subjected to MS and MS-AS earthquake

sequence is 1.2% and 10.10% for low a/v and high a/v records. For model M1SW1, the

difference is 6.9% and 12.11% for low a/v and high a/v records. A related development is

detected for the model M1SW2 that is 11% and 10.10% for low a/v ratio and high a/v

respectively.

A c c e le r a t io n , m /s2

No

rm

ali

ze

d H

eig

ht

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0 .0

0 .1

0 .2

0 .3

0 .4

0 .5

0 .6

0 .7

0 .8

0 .9

1 .0

L o w a /v M S -A S


L o w a /v M S

H ig h a /v M S


No

rm

ali

ze

d H

eig

ht

0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4

0 .0

0 .1

0 .2

0 .3

0 .4

0 .5

0 .6

0 .7

0 .8

0 .9

1 .0

L o w a /v M S -A S


L o w a /v M S

H ig h a /v M S

Figure 23 Accelerations for model M1FB Figure 24 Accelerations for model M1SW1


No

rm

ali

ze

d H

eig

ht

0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4

0 .0

0 .1

0 .2

0 .3

0 .4

0 .5

0 .6

0 .7

0 .8

0 .9

1 .0

L o w a /v M S -A S


L o w a /v M S

H ig h a /v M S


No

rm

ali

ze

d H

eig

ht

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

0 .0

0 .1

0 .2

0 .3

0 .4

0 .5

0 .6

0 .7

0 .8

0 .9

1 .0

L o w a /v M S

L o w a /v M S -A S


H ig h a /v M S

Figure 25 Accelerations for model M1SW2 Figure 26 Accelerations for model M2FB




No

rm

ali

ze

d H

eig

ht

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

0 .0

0 .1

0 .2

0 .3

0 .4

0 .5

0 .6

0 .7

0 .8

0 .9

1 .0

L o w a /v M S

L o w a /v M S -A S


H ig h a /v M S


No

rm

ali

ze

d H

eig

ht

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

0 .0

0 .1

0 .2

0 .3

0 .4

0 .5

0 .6

0 .7

0 .8

0 .9

1 .0

L o w a /v M S

L o w a /v M S -A S


H ig h a /v M S

Figure 27 Accelerations for model M2SW1 Figure 28 Accelerations for model M2SW2

In the similar way, for the building model M2, it has been observed that there is a decrease

in the acceleration at the top for the fixed base building M2FB, when subjected to MS and

MS-AS earthquake sequence is 2.6% and 10.92%. Even for model M2SW1, the iteration is

2.40% and 16.77% low a/v and high a/v records. In the similar manner further values are

obtained for M2SW2 as 1.52% and 19.81% for low a/v and high a/v respectively.

REFERENCES

[1] Agarwal, P., and Shrikhande, M. (2006). Earthquake resistant design of structures, PHI

learning Pvt. Ltd.

[2] Clough, R. W., and Penzien, J. (1993). Dynamics of structures, McGraw Hill, New York.

[3] FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). (1997). “NEHRP Guidelines for the

Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings.” FEMA 273, Washington, D.C.

[4] FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). “Earthquake Loss Estimation

Methodology.” Hazus –MH 2.1, Washington, D.C.bb

[5] Garcia, J. R (2014). “Issues on the Response of Existing Buildings Under Mainshock-

Aftershock Seismic Sequences.” Proc., 15th World Conference on Earthquake

Engineering, Lisboa, Portugal.

[6] Lee, K. and Foutch, D. A. (2004). “Performance evaluation of damaged steel frame

buildings subjected to seismic loads.” J. of Struct. Engg., 130(4), 588-599.

[7] Lew, M., Naeim, F., Huang, S.C., Lam, H.K. and Carpenter, L.D. (2000). “Geotechnical

andgeological efiects of the 21 September 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake, Taiwan.” The

StructuralDesign of Tall Buildings, 9, 89-106.

[8] Li, Q. and Ellingwood, B. R. (2007). “Performance evaluation and damage assessment of

steel frame buildings under main shock-aftershock earthquake sequences.” Earthquake

Engg. Struct. Dynamics, 36, 405-427.

[9] Luco, N., Bazzurro, P., and Cornell, C, A. (2004). “Dynamic versus static computation of

the residual capacity of a mainshock-damaged building to withstand an aftershock.” Proc.,

13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada., Paper No. 2405.

[10] Tso, W. K., Zhu, T. J., and Heidebrecht, A. C. (1992).“Engineering implication of ground

motion A/V ratio.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 11(3), 133–144.



[11] Uma, S. R., Ryu, H., Luco, N., Liel, A. B., and Raghunanda, M. (2011). “Comparison of

main-shock and aftershock fragility curves developed for New Zealand and US

buildings.” Proc., 9th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New

Zealand. Paper No. 227.

[12] Whittaker, A., Bertero, V.V., Wright, J. and Higashino, M. (1997). Earthquake damage

distribution, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,

Berkeley.

[13] J. Shaikh Sameer and S.B. Shinde, Seismic Response of Vertically Irregular RC Frame

with Mass Irregularity. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology , 7(5),

2016, pp.257–264.

[14] D. Maher A. Adam, Osama A. Kamal and Mohamed El - Hoseny, Variation of Seismic

Response of Mid - Rise RC Buildings Due To Soil Structure Interaction Effects ,

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology , 7 ( 1 ), 201 6 , pp. 220 - 240

SEISMIC RESPONSE OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS … · 2018-04-24 · damage and extensive damage...

Documents

Transcript of SEISMIC RESPONSE OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS … · 2018-04-24 · damage and extensive damage...