This study investigates the influence of ground motion duration on the dynamic deformation capacity of a suite of 10 modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings. A robust numerical algorithm is proposed to estimate the dynamic deformation capacity of a structure by conducting incremental dynamic analysis. The geometric mean dynamic deformation capacity of the considered buildings was, on average, found to be 26% lower under long duration ground motions, compared to spectrally equivalent short duration ground motions. A consistent effect of duration on dynamic deformation capacity was observed over a broad range of structural periods considered in this study. Response spectral shape, however, was found to not significantly influence dynamic deformation capacity. These results indicate that the effect of duration could be explicitly considered in seismic design codes by modifying the deformation capacities of structures.
AbrahamsonNSilvaW (1996) Empirical Ground Motion Models (Technical Report). New York: Brookhaven National Laboratory.
2.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2010) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-10, Technical Report). Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
BarbosaARRibeiroFLNevesLA (2017) Influence of earthquake ground-motion duration on damage estimation: Application to steel moment resisting frames. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics46: 27–49.
5.
BommerJJStaffordPJAlarcónJE (2009) Empirical equations for the prediction of the significant, bracketed, and uniform duration of earthquake ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America99: 3217–3233.
6.
Bravo-HaroMAElghazouliAY (2018) Influence of earthquake duration on the response of steel moment frames. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering115: 634–651.
7.
ChandramohanR (2016) Duration of earthquake ground motion: Influence on structural collapse risk and integration in design and assessment practice. PhD Thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
8.
ChandramohanRBakerJWDeierleinGG (2016) Quantifying the influence of ground motion duration on structural collapse capacity using spectrally equivalent records. Earthquake Spectra32: 927–950.
9.
ChandramohanRBakerJWDeierleinGG (2017) Physical mechanisms underlying the influence of ground motion duration on structural collapse capacity. In: 16th World conference on earthquake engineering, Santiago, Chile, 9–13 January.
10.
ChandramohanRBakerJWDeierleinGG (2018) Accounting for the influence of ground motion response spectral shape and duration in the equivalent lateral force design procedure. In: 11th US national conference on earthquake engineering, Los Angeles, CA, 25–29 June.
11.
DanielsonKTAkersSAO’DanielJLAdleyMDGarnerSB (2008) Large-scale parallel computation methodologies for highly nonlinear concrete and soil applications. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering22: 140–146.
12.
FairhurstMBebamzadehAVenturaCE (2019) Effect of ground motion duration on reinforced concrete shear wall buildings. Earthquake Spectra35: 311–331.
13.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2009) Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors (Technical Report). Washington, DC: US Department of Homeland Security, FEMA.
14.
GuptaAKrawinklerH (2000) Dynamic P-delta effects for flexible inelastic steel structures. Journal of Structural Engineering126: 145–154.
15.
HammadAMoustafaMA (2020) Modeling sensitivity analysis of special concentrically braced frames under short and long duration ground motions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering128: 105867.
16.
HancockJBommerJJ (2006) A state-of-knowledge review of the influence of strong-motion duration on structural damage. Earthquake Spectra22: 827–845.
17.
HaseltonCBBakerJWLielABDeierleinGG (2011) Accounting for ground-motion spectral shape characteristics in structural collapse assessment through an adjustment for epsilon. Journal of Structural Engineering137: 332–344.
18.
HaseltonCBLielABDeierleinGGDeanBSChouJH (2010) Seismic collapse safety of reinforced concrete buildings. I: Assessment of ductile moment frames. Journal of Structural Engineering137: 481–491.
19.
HaseltonCBLielABLangeSTDeierleinGG (2008) Beam-Column Element Model Calibrated for Predicting Flexural Response Leading to Global Collapse of RC Frame Buildings (PEER Report 2007/03, Technical Report). Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California.
20.
IbarraLFMedinaRAKrawinklerH (2005) Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics34: 1489–1511.
21.
International Code Council (ICC) (2003) International Building Code. Falls Church, VA: ICC.
22.
International Code Council (ICC) (2012) International Building Code. Falls Church, VA: ICC.
23.
KemptonJJStewartJP (2006) Prediction equations for significant duration of earthquake ground motions considering site and near-source effects. Earthquake Spectra22: 985–1013.
24.
LiTMarafiNASenADBermanJWEberhardMOLehmanDERoederCW (2019) Seismic performance of special concentrically braced frames in deep basins during subduction-zone earthquakes. Engineering Structures188: 87–103.
25.
LiddellDInghamJMDavidsonBJ (2000) Influence of Loading History on Ultimate Displacement of Concrete Structures (Technical Report, 597). Auckland, New Zealand: Department of Civil and Resource Engineering, University of Auckland.
26.
LielABHaseltonCBDeierleinGG (2011) Seismic collapse safety of reinforced concrete buildings. II: Comparative assessment of nonductile and ductile moment frames. Journal of Structural Engineering137: 492–502.
27.
LielABLucoNRaghunandanMChampionCP (2015) Modifications to risk-targeted seismic design maps for subduction and near-fault hazards. In: 12th International conference on applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 12–15 July.
28.
McKennaFFenvesGScottM (2006) OpenSees: Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California. Available at: http://opensees.berkeley.eduAccessed June 1, 2020.
29.
MohammedMSSandersDBuckleI (2015) Shake table tests of reinforced concrete bridge columns under long duration ground motions. In: 6th International conference on advances in experimental structural engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL, 1–2 August.
30.
NZS 1170.5 (2004) NZS 1170.5: 2004 Structural Design Actions Part 5: Earthquake Actions—New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Standards New Zealand.
31.
OuY-CSongJWangP-HAdidharmaLChangK-CLeeGC (2013) Ground motion duration effects on hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete bridge columns. Journal of Structural Engineering140: 04013065.
32.
PanYVenturaCELiam FinnW (2018) Effects of ground motion duration on the seismic performance and collapse rate of light-frame wood houses. Journal of Structural Engineering144: 04018112.
33.
PetriniLMaggiCPriestleyMNCalviGM (2008) Experimental verification of viscous damping modeling for inelastic time history analyzes. Journal of Earthquake Engineering12: 125–145.
34.
PriestleyMGrantD (2005) Viscous damping in seismic design and analysis. Journal of Earthquake Engineering9: 229–255.
35.
PujolSSozenMARamirezJA (2006) Displacement history effects on drift capacity of reinforced concrete columns. ACI Materials Journal103: 253.
36.
RaghunandanMLielAB (2013) Effect of ground motion duration on earthquake-induced structural collapse. Structural Safety41: 119–133.
37.
RaghunandanMLielABLucoN (2015) Collapse risk of buildings in the Pacific Northwest region due to subduction earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra31: 2087–2115.
38.
RathjeEMDawsonCPadgettJEPinelliJ-PStanzioneDAdairAArduinoPBrandenbergSJCockerillTDeyCEstevaMHaanFLJrHanlonMKareemALowesLMockSMosquedaG (2017) DesignSafe: New cyberinfrastructure for natural hazards engineering. Natural Hazards Review18: 06017001.
39.
TrifunacMDBradyAG (1975) A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America65: 581–626.
