This paper presents a parametric study on the inelastic response of six-story reinforced concrete (RC) frames subjected to main shock–aftershock (MS-AS) ground motions. For this purpose, one bare frame (BF) and four masonry RC frames with two infill thicknesses (75 mm or 125 mm) and two infill patterns (open ground story or fully infilled) are considered. They are situated at site class C in Vancouver, Canada, and are designed for office occupancy according to the 2005 National Building Code of Canada. The five frames are subjected to 100 ensembles of MS-AS ground motions scaled to seismic hazard level corresponding to the return period of 2,500 years. For each sequence of earthquakes, change in the fundamental period (T1) and inter-story drift (ISD) for both MS-AS sequences are quantified. The analysis results show that the period change and ISD were significant for BF, whereas the infilled frames sustained small damage with negligible change in T1.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtkinsonG. M.and GodaK.2011. Effects of seismicity models and new ground-motion prediction equations on seismic hazard assessment for four Canadian cities, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America101, 176–189.
2.
BakerJ. W.and CornellC. A.2006. Correlation of response spectral values for multicomponent ground motions, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America96, 215–227.
3.
BakerJ. W.2011. The conditional mean spectrum: a tool for ground motion selection, Journal of Structural Engineering137, 322–331.
4.
BragaF.GigliottiR.and LaterzaM.2006. Analytical stress–strain relationship for concrete confined by steel stirrups and/or FRP jackets, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 132, 1402–1416.
5.
Cement Association of Canada (CAC), 2006. Concrete Design Handbook, 3rd edition, Cement Association of Canada (CAC), Ottawa, Ontario.
6.
CrisafulliF.and CarrA.2007. Proposed macro-model for the analysis of infilled frame structures, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering40, 69–77.
7.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA-356, Washington, D.C.
8.
FranchinP.and PintoP. E.2009. Allowing traffic over main shock–damaged bridges, Journal of Earthquake Engineering13, 585–599.
9.
GiuffreA.and PintoP.E.1970. Reinforced concrete behavior under strong repeated loadings, Giornale del Genio Civile5, 391–408.
10.
GodaK.and AtkinsonG. M.2009. Probabilistic characterization of spatially-correlated response spectra for earthquakes in Japan, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America99, 3003–3020.
11.
GodaK.and AtkinsonG. M.2011. Seismic performance of wood-frame houses in southwestern British Columbia, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics40, 903–924.
12.
GodaK.2012. Nonlinear response potential of main shock–aftershock sequences from Japanese Earthquakes, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America102, 2139–2156.
13.
GodaK.and TaylorC. A.2012. Effects of aftershocks on peak ductility demand due to strong ground motion records from shallow crustal earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics41, 2311–2330.
14.
GodaK.PomonisA.ChianS. C.OffordM.SaitoK.SammondsP.FraserS.RabyA.and MacabuagJ.2013. Ground motion characteristics and shaking damage of the 11th March 2011 Mw9.0 Great East Japan earthquake, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering11, 141–170.
15.
JalayerF.AsproneD.ProtaA.and ManfrediG.2011. A decision support system for post-earthquake reliability assessment of structures subjected to aftershocks: an application to L'Aquila earthquake, 2009, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering9, 997–1014.
16.
KadysiewskiS.and MosalamK.2009. Modeling of Unreinforced Masonry Infill Walls Considering In-plane and Out-of-Plane Interaction, PEER Report No. 2008/102, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
17.
KentD. C.and ParkR.1971. Flexural members with confined concrete, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 97, 1969–1990.
18.
LeeK.and FoutchD. A.2004. Performance evaluation of damaged steel frame buildings subjected to seismic loads, Journal Structural Engineering, ASCE, 130, 588–599.
19.
LeiteJ.LourencoP. B.and InghamJ. M.2013. Statistical assessment of damage to churches affected by the 2010–2011 Canterbury (New Zealand) earthquake sequence, Journal of Earthquake Engineering17, 73–97.
20.
LiauwT. C.and KwanK. H.1984. Nonlinear behavior of non-integral infilled frames, Computers and Structures18, 551–560.
21.
LiQ.and EllingwoodB. R.2007. Performance evaluation and damage assessment of steel frame buildings under main shock–aftershock earthquake sequence, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics36, 405–427.
22.
LucoN.BazzurroP.and CornellC. A.2004. Dynamic versus static computation of the residual capacity of a main shock–damaged building to withstand an aftershock, in Proceedings, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, paper no. 2405.
23.
LucoN.GerstenbergerM.RyuH.UmaS. R.LielA. B.and RaghunandanM.2011. A methodology for probabilistic post-earthquake risk assessment that accounts for aftershocks, in Proceedings, Ninth Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Building an Earthquake-Resilient Society, Auckland, New Zealand.
MainstoneR. J.1969. On the stiffness and strength of infilled frames, in Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers44, 31–48.
26.
MazzoniS.McKennaF.ScottM. H.FenvesG. L.and et al., 2006. OpenSees command language manual, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center, available at http://opensees.berkeley.edu.
27.
MenegottoM.and PintoP.1973. Method of analysis for cyclically loaded reinforced concrete plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under combined normal force and bending, Proceedings IABSE Symposium on Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well-Defined Repeated Loads, Lisbon, Portugal.
28.
MondalG.and TesfamariamS.2014. Effect of vertical irregularity and thickness of unreinforced masonry infill on the robustness of RC frame buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics43, 205–223.
29.
National Research Council of Canada (NRC), 2005. National Building Code of Canada, NBC-2005, Ottowa, Ontario.
30.
PaulayT.and PriestleyM. J. N.1992. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Structures, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 768 pp.
31.
RodriguesH.VarumH.and CostaA.2010. Simplified macro-model for infill masonry panels. Journal of Earthquake Engineering14, 390–416.
32.
Ruiz-GarcíaJ.2012. Main shock–aftershock ground motion features and their influence in building's seismic response, Journal of Earthquake Engineering16, 719–737.
33.
Ruiz-GarciaJ.and Negrete-ManriquezJ. C.2011. Evaluation of drift demands in existing steel frames under as-recorded far-field and near-filed main shock–aftershock seismic sequences. Engineering Structures33, 621–634.
34.
RyuH.LucoN.UmaS. R.and LielA. B.2011. Developing fragilities for main shock–damaged structures through incremental dynamic analysis, in Proceedings, Ninth Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Building an Earthquake-Resilient Society, Auckland, New Zealand.
35.
ScottB. D.ParkR.and PriestleyM. J. N.1982. Stress-strain behavior of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates, ACI Journal Proceeding79, 13–27.
36.
SpenceR.and D'AyalaD.1999. Damage assessment and analysis of the 1997 Umbria-Marche earthquakes, Structural Engineering International9, 229–233.
37.
SunasakaY.and KiremidjianA.1993. A Method for Structural Safety Evaluation Under Main shock–Aftershock Earthquake Sequences, Report No. 105, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University.
38.
HatzigeorgiouG. D.and BeskosD. E.2009. Inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF structures subjected to repeated earthquakes, Engineering Structures31, 2744–2755.
39.
VenturaC. E.FinnW. D. L.OnurT.BlanqueraA.and RezaiM.2005. Regional seismic risk in British Columbia - classification of buildings and development of damage probability functions, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering32, 372–387.
40.
YeoG. L.and CornellC. A.2009. A probabilistic framework for quantification of aftershock ground-motion hazard in California: methodology and parametric study, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics38, 45–60.
41.
YinY. J.and LiY.2011. Loss estimation of light-frame wood construction subjected to main shock–aftershock sequences, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities25, 504–513.
