Structural Pounding Effect on the Seismic Performance of a Multistorey Reinforced Concrete Frame Structure
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Examined Cases and Numerical Modelling
2.2. Seismic Performance Assessment
3. Results and Discussions
3.1. Fragility Analysis
3.2. Hazard Curves
3.3. Performance Assessment
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Rosenblueth, E.; Meli, R. The 1985 earthquake: Causes and effects in Mexico City. Concr. Int. 1986, 8, 23–24. [Google Scholar]
- Kasai, K.; Maison, B.F. Building pounding damage during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Eng. Struct. 1997, 19, 195–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jankowski, R. Non-linear FEM analysis of earthquake–induced structural pounding between the main building and the stairway tower of the Olive View Hospital. Eng. Struct. 2009, 31, 1851–1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cole, G.L.; Dhakal, R.P.; Turner, F.M. Building pounding damage observed in the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2012, 41, 893–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EN 1998-1; Eurocode 8—Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance. Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
- Maison, B.F.; Kasai, K. Dynamics of pounding when two buildings collide. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1992, 21, 771–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdel Raheem, S.E.; Alazrak, T.; Abdel Shafy, A.; Ahmed, M.; Gamal, Y. Seismic pounding between adjacent buildings considering soil-structure interaction. Earthq. Struct. 2021, 20, 55–70. [Google Scholar]
- Favvata, M.J. Minimum required separation gap for adjacent RC frames with potential inter-story seismic pounding. Eng. Struct. 2017, 152, 643–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, P.; Fan, P.P.; Zhu, H.X.; Yang, W.G. A Seismic Pounding Risk-based Method for Determination of Minimum Separation Distance between Nonlinear Adjacent Buildings. J. Earthq. Eng. 2022, 26, 7855–7877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anagnostopoulos, S.A. Pounding of buildings in series during earthquakes. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1988, 16, 443–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jankowski, R. Assessment of damage due to earthquake-induced pounding between the main building and the stairway tower. Key Eng. Mater. 2007, 347, 339–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miari, M.; Jankowski, R. Analysis of pounding between adjacent buildings founded on different soil types. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2022, 154, 107156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karayannis, C.G.; Favvata, M.J. Inter-story pounding between multistory reinforced concrete structures. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2005, 20, 505–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jankowski, R. Pounding between inelastic three-storey buildings under seismic excitations. Key Eng. Mater. 2016, 665, 121–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miari, M.; Choong, K.K.; Jankowski, R. Seismic pounding between adjacent buildings: Identification of parameters, soil interaction issues and mitigation measures. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2019, 121, 135–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anagnostopoulos, S.A.; Spiliopoulos, K. An investigation of earthquake induced pounding between adjacent buildings. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1992, 21, 289–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dimitrakopoulos, E.; Makris, N.; Kappos, A.J. Dimensional analysis of the earthquake-induced pounding between adjacent structures. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2009, 38, 867–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhai, C.; Jiang, S.; Li, S.; Xie, L. Dimensional analysis of earthquake-induced pounding between adjacent inelastic MDOF buildings. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2015, 14, 295–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahmoud, S.; Jankowski, R. Elastic and inelastic multi-storey buildings under earthquake excitation with the effect of pounding. J. Appl. Sci. 2009, 9, 3250–3262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karayannis, C.G.; Favvata, M.J. Earthquake-induced interaction between adjacent reinforced concrete structures with non-equal heights. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2005, 34, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chenna, R.; Ramancharla, P.K. Damage assessment due to pounding between adjacent structures with equal and unequal heights. J. Civ. Struct. Health Monit. 2018, 8, 635–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manoukas, G.E.; Karayannis, C.G. Seismic Interaction between Multistory Pilotis RC Frames and Shorter Structures with Different Story Levels—Floor-to-Column Pounding. CivilEng 2023, 4, 618–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karayannis, C.G.; Naoum, M. Inter-story pounding and torsional effect due to interaction between adjacent multistory RC buildings. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering COMPDYN 2017, Rhodes Island, Greece, 15–17 June 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Karayannis, C.G.; Naoum, M.C. Torsional behavior of multistory RC frame structures due to asymmetric seismic interaction. Eng. Struct. 2018, 163, 93–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiore, A.; Marano, G.C.; Monaco, P. Earthquake-induced lateral-torsional pounding between two equal height multi-storey buildings under multiple bi-directional ground motions. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2013, 16, 845–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, X.; Wang, L.; Chau, K.T. Nonlinear seismic torsional pounding between an asymmetric tower and a barrier. Earthq. Spectra 2009, 25, 899–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jankowski, R. Earthquake-induced pounding between equal height buildings with substantially different dynamic properties. Eng. Struct. 2008, 30, 2818–2829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mouzakis, H.P.; Papadrakakis, M. Three dimensional nonlinear building pounding with friction during earthquakes. J. Earthq. Eng. 2004, 8, 107–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jankowski, R.; Seleemah, A.; El-Khoriby, S.; Elwardany, H. Experimental study on pounding between structures during damaging earthquakes. Key Eng. Mater. 2015, 627, 249–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, L.; Hao, H. Analysis of coupled lateral-torsional-pounding responses of one-storey asymmetric adjacent structures subjected to bi-directional ground motions Part I: Uniform ground motion input. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2005, 8, 463–479. [Google Scholar]
- Flenga, M.G.; Favvata, M.J. Probabilistic seismic assessment of the pounding risk based on the local demands of a multistory RC frame structure. Eng. Struct. 2021, 245, 112789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vamvatsikos, D.; Cornell, C.A. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2002, 31, 491–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EN 1992-1-1; Eurocode 2—Design of Concrete Structures. Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
- Cornell, C.A.; Jalayer, F.; Hamburger, R.O.; Foutch, D.A. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. J. Struct. Eng. 2002, 128, 526–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Porter, K. A beginner’s guide to fragility, vulnerability, and risk. In Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering, 1st ed.; Beer, M., Kougioumtzoglou, I., Patelli, E., Au, I.K., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2015; pp. 235–260. [Google Scholar]
- Günay, S.; Mosalam, K.M. PEER performance-based earthquake engineering methodology, revisited. J. Earthq. Eng. 2013, 17, 829–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kramer, S.L. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, 1st ed.; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1996; pp. 106–138. [Google Scholar]
- Applied Technology Council (ATC). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings; Report No. ATC-40; ATC: Redwood City, CA, USA, 1996; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Pang, Y.; Wang, X. Cloud-IDA-MSA conversion of fragility curves for efficient and high-fidelity resilience assessment. J. Struct. Eng. 2021, 147, 04021049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kostinakis, K.; Fontara, I.K.; Athanatopoulou, A.M. Scalar structure-specific ground motion intensity measures for assessing the seismic performance of structures: A review. J. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 22, 630–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prakash, V.; Powell, G.H.; Campbell, S. DRAIN-2DX Base Program Description and User’s Guide, UCB/SEMM; Report No. 17/93; University of California: Oakland, CA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Bakalis, K.; Vamvatsikos, D. Seismic fragility functions via nonlinear response history analysis. J. Struct. Eng. 2018, 144, 04018181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitropoulou, C.C.; Papadrakakis, M. Developing fragility curves based on neural network IDA predictions. Eng. Struct. 2011, 33, 3409–3421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, J.W. Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthq. Spectra 2015, 31, 579–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vamvatsikos, D. Accurate application and second-order improvement of SAC/FEMA probabilistic formats for seismic performance assessment. J. Struct. Eng. 2014, 140, 04013058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Reilly, G.J.; Yasumoto, H.; Suzuki, Y.; Calvi, G.M.; Nakashima, M. Risk-based seismic design of base-isolated structures with single surface friction sliders. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2022, 51, 2378–2398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woessner, J.; Danciu, L.; Giardini, D.; the SHARE consortium. The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: Key components and results. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2015, 13, 3553–3596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
In Contact | ¼⋅0.7 Δmax | ½⋅0.7 Δmax | ¾⋅0.7 Δmax | 0.7 Δmax | Δmax | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Case 1 | 0 | 0.0039 | 0.0079 | 0.0118 | 0.0158 | 0.0225 |
Case 2 | 0 | 0.0086 | 0.0172 | 0.0258 | 0.0344 | 0.0492 |
Case 3 | 0 | 0.0138 | 0.0276 | 0.0414 | 0.0552 | 0.0788 |
Case 4 | 0 | 0.0184 | 0.0369 | 0.0553 | 0.0737 | 0.1053 |
Limit State | Maximum IDR | Performance Level |
---|---|---|
LS I | 1.0% | Immediate Occupancy |
LS II | 1.5% | Life Safety |
LS III | 2.5% | Collapse Prevention |
Limit State | ||
---|---|---|
LS I | 0.13 g | 0.29 |
LS II | 0.20 g | 0.33 |
LS III | 0.33 g | 0.39 |
LS I | LS II | LS III | |
---|---|---|---|
Athens | 11.0% | 4.4% | 1.5% |
Thessaloniki | 9.6% | 4.6% | 1.9% |
Patra | 25.0% | 11.9% | 4.1% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bantilas, K.E.; Naoum, M.C.; Kavvadias, I.E.; Karayannis, C.G.; Elenas, A. Structural Pounding Effect on the Seismic Performance of a Multistorey Reinforced Concrete Frame Structure. Infrastructures 2023, 8, 122. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures8080122
Bantilas KE, Naoum MC, Kavvadias IE, Karayannis CG, Elenas A. Structural Pounding Effect on the Seismic Performance of a Multistorey Reinforced Concrete Frame Structure. Infrastructures. 2023; 8(8):122. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures8080122
Chicago/Turabian StyleBantilas, Kosmas E., Maria C. Naoum, Ioannis E. Kavvadias, Chris G. Karayannis, and Anaxagoras Elenas. 2023. "Structural Pounding Effect on the Seismic Performance of a Multistorey Reinforced Concrete Frame Structure" Infrastructures 8, no. 8: 122. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures8080122