Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Cookie Information
Search
Share & Download
Like 68 1
Tw eet 0
Aims.
The main aim of this project is to find out how the desired intensity of an earthquake loading can be represented by selecting the appropriate accelerograms and using the right scaling procedures. To find out the type of accelerogram that could be used for this project and also which selection and scaling procedures will be
www.oxbridgewriters.com/essays/engineering/use-of-earthquake-accelerograms.php 1/12
4/3/13
adopted for the project? In order to achieve this aims the following objects are undertaken.
Objectives.
Explore the use of acelerograms in structural analysis. Explore the main types of accelerograms i.e. real and artificial accelerograms and find out the advantages and limitations of each so that the appropriate type accelerogram for the project is selected. Investigate different selection procedures of accelerograms. Consequently, workout which selection procedure is suitable for the project. Investigate the different scaling procedures there are, which scaling procedure will be used for the project and the problems associated with scaling accelerograms. Carryout numerical analysis based on modelling accelerograms.
Theoretical background.
In this chapter the necessary theory for this project will be stated. Ways of obtaining information from the time history, how to record accelerograms and also how to generate artificial accelerograms will be discussed. As well as all of these the definitions of important parameters and their usefulness is going to be stated.
Definitions of parameters.
Peak ground acceleration (PGA) is the parameter that is most frequently used to describe the severity of the ground motion. It is the highest absolute value of the acceleration in the record data. PGA=maximum |Acceleration (time)| (1) Although PGA is a parameter which is often used by engineers to characterise the damage of the earthquake on the structure (Sen, Tapan K.), some researchers identify it as a poor parameter compared to other parameters (Acevedo, 2003). Peak ground velocity (PGV) is parameter which is considered to be good indicator of the severity of the earthquake (Akkar and Bommer, 2007). PGV is obtained by the integration of the ground acceleration time history. PGV = maximum |Velocity (time)| (2) Peak ground displacement (PGD) is the highest absolute value of the displacement in the in the time-history. PGD is obtained by integrating the ground velocity time history. It is the parameter which is mostly used when the design of the structure is displacement-based. PGD= maximum |Displacement (time)| (3) An important parameter which is used to predict the structural response of a structure during an earthquake is e. By definition e is
www.oxbridgewriters.com/essays/engineering/use-of-earthquake-accelerograms.php 2/12
4/3/13
the difference between the spectral acceleration of the record and the spectral acceleration which is obtained for the attenuation equation (Baker and Cornell, 2005).
Selection procedures.
The selection of the appropriate accelerograms for the given structural design condition or analysis is necessary, as this forms the basis for realistic design of structures which resist earthquakes loads that may possibly occur at the specified site. Selection of accelerograms is usually based on earthquake scenarios such as magnitude, distance and site classifications (Bommer and Scott, 2000). The magnitude of an earthquake is important information as it is a measure of the size of an earthquake in relation to the amount of energy that is released during the earthquake. The duration and the frequent content of the accelerogram are dependent on the magnitude of the accelerograms (Stewart et al. 2001). Since the duration of an earthquake is how long it takes for the fault area to rupture, earthquakes with large fault area have large magnitudes. Thus, the duration and the magnitude of an earthquake are
www.oxbridgewriters.com/essays/engineering/use-of-earthquake-accelerograms.php 3/12
4/3/13
related as that they both associate with the fault area. Selection of accelerograms according to site classification requires a site which has similar geological characteristics to the site under consideration. When selecting recorded accelerograms it is very important that the fault-site distance is used. Accelerograms which are recorded at near-fault distance have different characteristics from accelerograms which are recorded at a distance far from the fault-site. This results from the fact that rupture fault influences the characteristics of the accelerogram. Accelerogram which is recorded near the earthquake source is often influenced by rupture of fault effect, such as rupture directivity and fling step (Stewart et al., 2001). Baker et al., (2001) stated that the energy content and the duration of the accelerogram are influenced by the type of rupture directivity which is present in the location the accelerogram is recorded at. For that reason in the selection process there should be a check for the type of rupture directivity present. If the rupture directivity is a forward directivity the recorded accelerogram will have high amplitude and short duration. A characteristic of forward directivity is that the fault rupture velocity will be near as large as the velocity of the shear wave for the given site. Thus, there will be a wave front of the earthquake which arrives as a large pulse of motion at the start of the recording (Baker, 2009). This results in the structure being damaged. This occurs when the site is away from the epicentre. On the other hand if the rupture directivity is a backward directivity which takes place when the accelerogram recorded on a site that is close to the epicentre, the recorded acclerogram will have small amplitude and long duration. Another effect which is not often discussed in the literature is fling-step. This takes place when the ground that is subjected to the earthquake deforms statically and as a consequence the accelerogram will have unidirectional velocity pulse (Stewart. et al., 2001). Considering the affects of the distance and directivity on the accelerogram in this manner makes sure that the most influential effects of the distance which are likely to affect the accelerogram are taken into account. For example if the forward directivity is not considered in the selection and the recording for the site had forward directivity the structure will be damaged in case an earthquake occurs. Although most researchers have agreed for many years that the parameters that should be considered when selecting appropriate accelerogram for a given site are magnitude, distance and site classifications, with greater emphasis given to the magnitude and the distance. In contrast to this conservative view Baker and Cornell (2005, 2006) consider the effect of epsilon (the difference of Sa of the recorded accelerograms from the predicted Sa from the ground motion predicted equation) on the structural response to be greater than the effect of distance and magnitude. Thus, indicating that for selection e is the most significant parameter of the accelerogram. Since, e is a good indicator of the value of spectral acceleration on the spectrum if it is a peak value or not. This new concept could be considered to be controversial as there are not a lot of researches which are conduct that prove this point stated above. This will be a good point to consider for this project.
4/3/13
time history is scaled up or down so that it meets the requirements. In this method of scaling the frequent content of the accelerogram is not altered (Bommer and Scott 2000). Bommer and Scott (2000) addressed that scaling accelerograms by a factor which is not close to one is more likely to bring about unrealistic earthquake ground motion as a result of increased in energy while the duration and the frequent content of the accelerogram stay unadjusted. When the accelerogram is scaled the resulting time history should have the features which are expected of a real earthquake, since if there is a great difference between the two, the scaled time history will not be of any use as it is unrealistic. For that reason scaling accelerograms should not be done if accelerograms that meet the design spectrum could not be found. In addition, another point which must also be considered is scaling the time axis of the accelerogram which is used to adjust the frequent content. This is not often carried out since it increases the duration and the energy content of the accelerogram. Thus impractical accelerogram is produced (Bommer and Scott, 2000). Compared to scaling of the amplitude it is more difficult to scale the time axis of the accelerogram from the fact that there is greater care to be taken when doing time axis scaling. However, there is a further vital element in the discussion about scaling which is the biased response that results from scaling and what solutions there are in place that ensures unbiased response. Bias structural response due to scaling of accelerograms has been a topic of discussion and research for nearly a decade. The question is how the bias arises and what contributes to it. Response is said to be bias if there is a systematic difference between the responses of a scaled record compared to unscaled record at the same intensity measure. Research findings by Luco and Bazzuro (2007) show whether the response of the structure is degree of biased of a randomly selected records for a given magnitude and distance, as well as scaling dependant on: the scaling factor, strength of the structure, the structure's fundamental period of vibration and also the magnitude and the distance of the accelerogram. From this it is clear that the scaling factor which is used is not the only factor that contributes to the existence of the bias response after scaling. This study implies that if all the factors which contribute to the response being biased after scaling are considered carefully during the scaling bias response could be avoided. The findings of the above research also show that the bias response can be avoided if records are chosen carefully to have spectral shapes which are near enough to the spectral shape of the target. One particularly striking aspect of this is that the magnitude and the distance of the accelerogram are not of significance under this condition. Furthermore, Baker and Cornell (2006) conducted a study which argued that bias response of a structure can be reduced by selecting the records according to Conditional mean spectrum (CMS-e) or e instead of magnitude and distance. Given that the structural response is to a great extent affected by the spectral shape (which e is an indirect measure of). These studies indicate that bias response of a structure can be avoided or reduced by selecting accelerograms which have similar spectral shape to the target spectral shape. In addition, it is stressed that when selecting accelerograms the main emphasis should not be on the magnitude or the distance as they do not influence the spectra shape.
4/3/13
The number of accelerograms which are recorded across the world has increased over the past few years at the same time these databanks do not cover all the seismically active areas. The reason for this is that some of these places do not have accelerographs in place to record the earthquakes. Consequently, it is very difficult to find recorded accelerograms that have the necessary magnitude, distance and soil type for a site which is located in a region with few or no accelerographs to record the accelerograms (Bommer et al., 2003).This is clearly a disadvantage of recorded accelerograms. Meanwhile, the benefit of artificial accelerograms when compared with real accelerograms is that few records are needed to create artificial acclerogram which almost always matches the design spectra (Priestly, 2006). On the other hand, unlike artificial records real accelerograms can be scaled to match the design spectrum without affecting the essential characteristics such as the frequency content. In trying to examine the many aspects of real and artificial accelerograms it is clear that both have their advantages and disadvantages for that reason it is always up to the engineer to select whichever is most suited for the design. For that reason the decision reached for this project is to use real accelerograms as they present less serious limitations than artificial accelerograms.
Methodology Introduction.
The main aim in conducting this research is to determine whether epsilon (e), is a good indicator of structural response. Various researches have been done in the past to show that magnitude and distance are good indicators of structural response. On the other hand there is considerable less research that shows that e can be used as a good indicator of structural response. Baker and Cornell (2005, 2006) stated that selection based on e is more effective in predicting structural response than selection based on magnitude and distance. The studies done by Baker and Cornell (2005, 2006) focused on the effect of e on the structural response when the accelerogram is scaled to same Sa (T) value. Furthermore, this maximum interstorey drift has been used as the structural response parameter. In contrast to these studies in this research the effect of e on the structural response when the accelerogram is unscaled will be investigated to rule out bias in the response and also to give true response. Furthermore, more than one
www.oxbridgewriters.com/essays/engineering/use-of-earthquake-accelerograms.php 6/12
4/3/13
structural response parameters will be used these are maximum inter-storey drift and the demand capacity ratios these are maximum plastic rotation (?p), shear resistance contributed by the concrete, axial load and transverse reinforcement (VR3), and shear resistance to web crushing (VR2) where the maximum of these will represent the overall element damage index, Id,el (Kappos and Dymiotis, 2000).
Input accelerograms.
The 40 unscaled accelerograms are adopted from Baker research group at Stanford University; these are for Peer Transportation Systems Research Program. This data is collected by Nirmal Jayaram, Shrey Shahi and Jack Baker in early 2010. This data can be found at the PEER website (http://peer.berkeley.edu/transportation/gm_peer_transportation.html). The data which is obtained from this website includes the e values for the 40 records. These e values are calculated at different periods that range from 0.01 (s) to 10 (s). The attenuation relationship used to calculate the e values is Boore & Atkinson (2008) ground motion prediction equation. From the databank of the accelerograms only the fault parallel records from soil site are downloaded for use in this research. For these records all the important parameters for each recorded are listed in Table 6. These include PGA, PGV, PGD, e, Magnitude, Hypocentral distance and closest distance. Some of these data which correspond to the specific time histories are taken from PEER NGA Database which can be downloaded from (http://peer.berkeley.edu/nga/flatfile.html).
4/3/13
The design of the bare frame structure is strong column weak beam design. Column failure is taken as global failure; column failure is taken as critical since it results in the structure losing stability. Whereas beam failure is not considered to be significant as beam failure will not result in the frame collapsing. This is due to fact that beams dissipate the energy consequently the damage is only concentrated in the beams. The outer columns of the bare frame structure are modeled as beam-column elements with elasto-plastic response (Chyssanthopoulos et al. 2000). On the other hand, the internal columns and beams are modelled as beam elements. For this research the response values which are taken into account are the responses from the outer and inner columns of the structure. The maximum interstorey drift and the Id,el values are all from the columns of the bare frame structure the structural response results for the beams are not considered.
Discussion
In this chapter the findings from the structural response and how they relate to the ground motion parameters will be discussed. Detailed analysis will be done in which the mean focus will be on the relationship between e and structural response and how this compares with relationships that magnitude and distance have with structural response. From the graphs of e against maximum damage index, Id,el for the inner and outer columns of the bare frame structure which are shown in Figures 6-7, there is positive correlation between maximum damage index, Id,el and e. This relationship is not strong enough as is evident from the correlation coefficients on Table 1, but from the correlation coefficients the relationship between e and Id,el for the outer columns is greater than that of e and Id,el for inner columns which means that the relationship between e and the maximum damage index, Id,el is greater. Furthermore, on average the maximum damage index, Id,el for the inner columns are greater than those of the outer columns. This suggests that the inner columns are more damaged than the outer columns. Both of these differences although not considerably significant could be due to the element design differences between the inner and the outer columns. On the whole the correlation between e and Id,el is moderately positive correlation this means that positive e values have nearlinear relationship with maximum damage index, Id,el and they result in higher Id,el values when compared to negative e values. This implies that earthquakes positive e values result in greater damage to the structure. In comparing these graphs and the correlation coefficients on Table 3 of e and Id,el to those of magnitude and Id,el and also to those of closest distance and Id,el..The correlation between e and Id,el for the outer columns is stronger than that of magnitude and Id,el for the outer columns but the same does not apply for the inner columns. Correlation between closest distance and structural response is stronger than both magnitude and e's correlations with structural response. This correlation between closest distance and structural response (Id,el and maximum interstorey drift), is negative but moderate which is reasonable and is what is expected as it shows that structures which are located close to the source of the earthquake will be damaged more than structures that are located far from the source of the structure as the intensity of the earthquake will be greater.
www.oxbridgewriters.com/essays/engineering/use-of-earthquake-accelerograms.php 8/12
4/3/13
The relationships that the ground motion parameters magnitude, closest distance and e have with maximum interstorey drift. An interesting point is that the relationship between magnitude and maximum interstorey drift is a lot weaker than the relationship between e and maximum interstorey drift and also that of closest distance and maximum interstorey drift. Conversely, there is moderately good correlation between e and maximum interstorey drift, which can be seen on Figure 1 and also from the correlation coefficients on Table 3. This relationship is also stronger than the correlation between e and closest distance and Id,el for both inner and outer columns. What is striking from both the graphs of e against Id,el and e against maximum interstorey drift is that as the e values become positive there is more likelihood that the resulting structural response is greater than that for negative e values. As well as these, what is also noticeable is that on the whole e values which are close to -1 result in the lowest structural response. The three ground motion parameters which were considered in this research namely magnitude, closest distance and e were all correlated to each other to see if there is any relationship between them. The findings showed that there is very weak correlation between e and closest distance and also closest distance and magnitude but there is moderately weak negative correlation between e and magnitude. This can be seen in Table 3, what this means is that earthquake with high magnitude will have low e values and vice-versa. What raises concern is the negative correlation between magnitude and structural responses. which is not realistic, as it means that the greater the magnitude of the earthquake the less damage to the structure, this is not the case as earthquakes with large magnitudes cause more damage to the structure. Another point must be considered in this case to see if there are other factors that are causing this negative correlation. As is known magnitude of an earthquake does not vary with the distance away from the source of the earthquake, were as the intensity of an earthquake varies with distance away from source. One explanation for the negative correlation could be due to the accelerogram for that given magnitude being recorded at a far distance from the source of the earthquake. For that reason the large magnitude with the low values structural responses are compiled in Tables 4-5 to see if far distance is the reason that these structural are low and not other reasons. Hypocentral distance was used to carry out this investigation also PGA values included in the table to check if there is decrease in intensity as the distance increases. Although this was the case for some earthquakes with magnitudes of around six the majority of the seven and above magnitude earthquakes were recorded at distance far from the hypocenter of the earthquake. For this reason and the fact that from the same table the PGA values decrease with increasing hypocentral distance, what can be said from this is that the negative correlation between magnitude and structural response since the intensity of the earthquake which PGA is a measure of decreases with increasing distance from the source of the earthquake. The correlation is negative as the numbers of acceleragrams with such magnitudes dominate the number of accelerograms that were used for the analysis. The negative correlation between magnitude and the structural responses puts in to a question the validity of using magnitude given that this was the case the PGA values were used to check the their correlations with the corresponding structural response . PGA values were plotted against Maximum interstorey drift and also the maximum damage index, Id, el. From these graphs there is strong positive correlation between PGA values and the structural responses (both maximum interstorey drift and Id,el). These correlations between PGA and the structural responses is the strongest when compared to the structural responses correlations with all the other ground parameters. Since, the PGA values were calculated by taking absolute values of the maximum acceleration of the time history the PGA values are all positive.
4/3/13
CONCLUSION This project was intended to find how the desired intensity of an earthquake can be achieved by choosing appropriate selection and scaling procedure of accelerogram. By carrying out comprehensive literature review into selection and scaling of accelerograms it was found that apart from the widely established selection procedures for accelerograms such as selection according to magnitude, distance and site classification, there is a ground motion parameter which could also be used as selection parameter but has few researches to support it. This parameter is the e value of the time history which is defined in chapter two. For that reason it was decided to carry out research in which structural response analysis is done to investigate if e is as good as magnitude and distance in predicting structural response. From this research it was found that there is a relationship between e and structural response. This is a positive relationship in which positive e values result in greater structural damage. Another interesting finding is that the relationship between maximum interstorey drift is greater relationship between e and maximum damage index, Id,el. Baker and Cornell (2006) used maximum interstorey drift as the structural response parameter and they found that there is a relationship between maximum interstorey drift and e which also agrees with the findings from this research. Findings from the structural response analysis raised more questions than answers. Some of the questions raised from carrying out the structural response analysis are related directly to e values while few are related to the use of magnitude as structural response predictor. These are recommended as future research in this field. Firstly, investigations should be done to find out why e values which are closest to -1, result in low structural responses compared to other e values. It will also be good to investigate the relationship between e and structural response from an infill frame as in this research the structural frame used is bare frame. This should be carried out as infill frames are complex and the fact that the infills affect the structures characteristics under earthquake loading. As well as using maximum damage index, Id,el and maximum interstorey drift as the parameters for measuring structural response it will be useful to include more parameters such as maximum floor acceleration. Another point which should also be further investigated is how far magnitude is influence by distance when structural response is concern. This will require the plotting of a 3D graph in which two of the axes are magnitude and distance and the third axis as the structural response. This could in turn require developing equation that links the three variables. From this the structural response for high magnitude and far distance should be observed to see if it is high or low. To conclude, the findings from this research suggest that e is better ground motion parameter for selection than magnitude. This result from the fact e is not affected by distance from the source of the earthquake whereas magnitude is affected. This is evident from the relationships that e and magnitude have with hypocentral distance which could be seen from the correlation coefficients in Table 3. On the other hand, PGA and distance are advised to be used for accelerogram selection in order to achieve the required intensity especially PGA as there is moderately strong correlation between this ground motion parameters and structural response.
References:
1. Acevedo, A. B., (2003). Seismological criteria for selecting and scaling real accelerograms for use in engineering analysis and design, Masters Thesis, European School of Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk, Rose School. 2. Akkar, s, Bommer, J.J (2007), Empirical Prediction Equation for Peak Ground Velocity Derived From Strong-Motion Records from Europe and the Middle East. B SIESMOL SOC AM, Volume: 97, pages 511-530. 3. Baker, Jack and Cornell, C. Allin (2005). "A Vector-Valued Ground Motion Intensity Measure Consisting of Spectral Acceleration and Epsilon," Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics , Vol. 34, No. 10, pp. 1193-1217. 4. Baker, J.W and Cornell, C. Allin (2006). ``Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection'' Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 35(9), 1077-1095. 5. Baker, J. W. (2009). "Review of Recent Ground Motion Studies for Performance-based Engineering." Proceedings, A Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering at the Centre for Scientific Culture of the University of Naples Federico II, Anacapri, Italy, 10p. 6. Bommer,J.J. and S.G. Scott (2000) "the feasibility of using real accelerograms for seismic design," Implication of Recent Earthquake on Seismic Risk, A.S. Elnashai & S. Antoniou (ed.), Imperial College Press. 7. Bommer,J.J., Acevedo,A.B., Douglas,J., (2003)."The selection and scaling of real earthquake accelerograms for use in
www.oxbridgewriters.com/essays/engineering/use-of-earthquake-accelerograms.php 10/12
4/3/13
13. 14.
15. 16.
17.
18. 19.
seismic design and assessment", Proceedings of ACI international conference on seismic bridge design and retrofit, La Jolla, California, American Concrete Institute. Boore, D.M., and Bommer, J.J., (2005). Processing of strong-motion accelerograms: needs, options and consequences. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 25(2005) 93-115. Chryssanthopoulos, Mario K., Dymiotis, Christiana., Kappos, Andreas J. (2000). Probabilistic Evaluation of Behaviour Factors in EC8- Designed R/C Frames. Eng Struct 22:1028-41. Enrique E. Matheu, Don E. Yule, and Raju V. Kala, (2005), Determination of Standard Response Spectra and Effective Peak Ground Acceleration for Seismic Design and Evaluation. US Army Corps of Engineers. Kappos, Andreas J., Dymiotis, Christiana. Drain-2000 A Program For The Inelastic Time-History And Seismic Reliability Analysis Of 2-D Structures. HERIOT-WATT UNIVERSITY Edinburgh. Luco, N., and Bazzurro, P., (2007). Does amplitude scaling of ground motion records result in biased nonlinear structural drift responses?, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. [in press]. Published Online In Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). Nguyen, V.B., (2006). Numerical Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Pier under Artificially Generated Earthquake Time-Histories. PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering the University of Birmingham. Priestley, Nigel (2006), "SEISMOLOGICAL INFORMATION FOR DISPLACEMENT-BASED DESIGN- A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER'S WISH LIST", Proceedings of the First European Conference on Earthquake and Seismology (1st ECEES), Geneva, Switzerland, 3-8 September 2006. Sen, Tapan K. (2009), Fundamentals of SEISMIC LOADING ON STRUCTURES. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Stewart, J.P., Chiou, S.J., Bray, J.D., Graves, R.W., Somerville, P.G. and Abrahamson, N.A. (2001). Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design, PEER Report 2001/09, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, College of Engineering University of California, Berkeley. Trifunac, M.D., Todorovska, M.I. (2001), Evolution of accelerations, data processing, strong motion arrays and amplitude and spatial resolution in recording strong earthquake motion. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 21 (2001) 537555. (http://peer.berkeley.edu/nga/flatfile.html) (last accessed in 15/02/2010). (http://peer.berkeley.edu/transportation/gm_peer_transportation.html) (last accessed in 15/02/2010).
Good Poor
Neutral
www.oxbridgewriters.com/essays/engineering/use-of-earthquake-accelerograms.php
11/12
4/3/13
Copyright 2013 Oxbridge Writers is a brand of All Answers Ltd. Company Registration No: 4964706. VAT Registration No: 842417633. Fair Use Policy | Terms & Conditions | Get Verified | Privacy Policy | Complaints Policy | FAQs | Cookie Information
O xbridge Write rs: The UK's numbe r one provide r of custom e ssays from O xford and Cambridge Unive rsity qualifie d e xpe rts - O xbridge Essays Se rvice
www.oxbridgewriters.com/essays/engineering/use-of-earthquake-accelerograms.php
12/12