در باب تأثیر زلزله نزدیک و دور از گسل بر ضریب کاهش مقاومت و نسبت تغییر شکل غیر ارتجاعی به ارتجاعی با رویکرد تقاضای شکل پذیری

نویسندگان
1 عضو هیئت علمی موسسه آموزش عالی جهاددانشگاهی خوزستان
2 عضو هیات علمی گروه عمران
چکیده
مطالعه خسارت‌های زلزله‌های قبل مؤید ورود پاسخ سازه به ناحیه غیرخطی است. در این حالت نیروی برش پایه و تغییر مکان سازه نبست به حالت الاستیک تفاوت دارد. چنانچه زلزله نزدیک گسل باشد، این تفاوت‌ها می‌تواند چشمگیرتر باشد. به همین دلیل در این پژوهش دو ضریب کاهش مقاومت در اثر شکل‌پذیری (Rµ) و نسبت تغییر شکل غیر الاستیک به الاستیک (CR) برای مؤلفه‌های موازی و عمود برگسل زلزله نزدیک و دور از گسل محاسبه‌شده‌اند. همچنین حساسیت این دو پارامتر به ضریب کرنش سخت شدگی (α) و میرایی بررسی گردید. CR به‌دست‌آمده با C1 پیشنهادی در فیما 440-مقایسه شد. درنهایت ضریب بزرگنمایی تغییر مکان به ضریب رفتار برای سطوح مختلف شکل-پذیری محاسبه‌شده است. برای محاسبه نتایج درمجموع 106400 تحلیل تاریخچه زمانی غیرخطی انجام گرفت. نتایج به‌دست‌آمده نشان داد که Rµ زلزله نزدیک می‌تواند با مقدار متناظر حاصل از زلزله دور تفاوت داشته باشد. همچنین CR چندان به نوع رکورد وابسته نبوده و با افزایش پریود به یک همگرا می‌شود. حساسیت Rµ و CR در برابر α قابل‌توجه نیست. بعلاوه با افزایش ضریب میرایی، نمودارهای Rµ و CR از حالت مضرس خارج‌شده و هموارتر می‌گردد. درنهایت استفاده از C1 متناسب با نوع رکورد و دوره تناوب سازه می‌تواند محافظه‌کارانه یا غیر محافظه‌کارانه باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله English

On the Effect of Near and Far Field Earthquakes on Strength Reduction Factor and Inelastic to Elastic Displacement Ratio, Demand Ductility Concept

نویسنده English

Navid Siahpolo 1
1 Civil Engineering Faculty Membership of ACECR Institute for Higher Education- Khoozestan Branch
چکیده English

The experience of previous earthquakes shows that the inelastic response of structure relates to the intensity and content of ground motion. In this case, the evaluation of nonlinear response of structure demonstrates the reduction in the base shear force. This reduction leads to inelastic base shear is defined by Behavior Factor (strength reduction factor) in seismic codes. One of the important parts in R factor is ductility reduction factor Rμ or. While Rμ is related to type of earthquake, it seems that for near fault motions there would be a different value in comparison to ordinary earthquakes. Fir the near fault earthquakes, due to direction of fault rupture from the site, the directivity effect becomes an important parameter. Previous researches show that for forward directivity effect, there would be two components for earthquakes. One is strike normal and the other is strike parallel. In this paper these components are named as the SN and SP. Also, in concept of performance -based design, to calculate target displacement, the ratio between inelastic and elastic response of structure is an important index. In this paper, this ratio is named as CR. It is good to mention that CR factor is defined as a C1 coefficient in FEMA440. In the previous research, the evaluation of CR for near and far fault motions has less considered.
To evaluate Rμ and CR, the extended number of SDOF systems (from 0.2 to 4 Sec.) for four levels of target ductility (2, 3, 4 and 5) have been considered. Then, Rμ and CR calculated for near field (normal and parallel component) and far fault earthquakes. At the end, for the strike normal component, a sensitivity analysis was carried out due to strain hardening ratio and inherent damping. To perform the analysis in Opensees, the nonlinear time history analysis was selected. During the assessment of Rμ and CR, the strain hardening slope and damping have been selected 3% and 5% respectively. The steel material was defined as bilinear. To set the demand ductility with prescribed target ductility, during trial and error procedure, the yield strength of SDOF was changed since the target ductility achieved. To evaluate sensitivity of Rμ and CR to the effect of strain hardening slope, this factor was selected as 0, 3, 5 and 10%. In the case of damping sensitivity, inherent damping were selected as 2, 5. 10 and 20%. To solve the inelastic equation of motion, the Newmark-Beta method was selected. The inelasticity in Opensees was modeled with distributed plasticity using the fiber element. Finally to calculate Rμ and CR for near and far field motions, approximately 84000 nonlinear time history analysis have been carried out. Also, to study sensitivity of Rμ and CR to damping and strain hardening ratio for the strike normal earthquake, approximately 22400 nonlinear time history analysis have been carried out.
The results show that for all three sets of the earthquake, the Rμ increases and then constant while the fundamental period (T) increases. For small value of ductility (μ), increasing T may lead that Rμ converges to target ductility. In the near field, while T and μ increase, Rμ is almost greater than μ. Also, for small value of T, Rμ is not depend on demand μ. The study shows using far field value of Rμ for near field motions may lead to Non-conservative value. Furthermore, while T increases, the CR value converges to the unit. In the short period, CR depends on μ and T severely. Using CR of far field against SN component leads to Non-conservative result. For a constant value of μ and T, increasing damping increases CR. Using C1 for near field motions is Non-conservative for near field motions. Also, for short periods and high ductility demand, CR, corresponding to SN component is 40% greater than C1. Evaluation of ratio between displacement modification factor and behavior factor shows (Cd/R) for T greater than 1 Sec. this ratio converges to the unit. For small period value, this ratio is dependent to period significantly. Also, using Cd/R of far field for near field motions may lead to inaccurate results.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Near field motions
ductility
Nonlinear time history analysis
behavior factor
FEMA440
[1].               Riddell R., Newmark N. M., 1979 Statistical analysis of the response of nonlinear systems subjected to earthquakes. Structural Research Series No. 468, Dept. of Civil Eng. Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA.
[2].               Peng M. H., Elghadamsi F., & Mohraz B. 1988 A stochastic procedure for nonlinear response spectra. Ninth World Conference on Earthquake  Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan.
[3].               Krawinkler H., Nassar A., 1990 Strength and ductility demands for SDOF and MDOF systems subjected to Whittier narrows earthquake ground motions. CSMIP-1990, California Dept. of Conservation, Sacramento, CA, USA
[4].               Miranda E., 1993 Site-dependent strength reduction factors. Journal of Structure Engineering,  ASCE, 119(12), 3503–3519.
[5].               Tiwari A. K., Gupta V. K., 2000 Scaling of ductility and damage-based strength reduction factors for horizontal motions. Earthquake Engineering Structure Dynamics, 29(7), 969–987.
[6].               Chakraborti A., Gupta V. K., 2005 Scaling of strength reduction factors for degrading elasto-plastic oscillators. Earthquake Engineering Structure Dynamics, 34(2), 189–206.
[7].               Jalali R., Trifunac M.D., 2007 Strength-Reduction factors for structures subjected to near-source differential strong ground motions. ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, 44(1), 285–304.
[8].               Miranda E., 1999 Approximate seismic lateral deformation demands in multistory buildings. Journal of Structure Engineering, 125(4), 417–425.
[9].               Baez, J.I., Miranda E., 2000 Amplification factors to estimate inelastic displacement demands for the design of structures in the near field. In: 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand.
[10].            Ruiz-Garcia J., Miranda, E., 2003 Inelastic displacement ratios for evaluation of existing structures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 32(8), 1237–1258.
[11].            Chopra A.K., Chintanapakdee C., 2004 Inelastic deformation ratios for design and evaluation of structures: Single-Degree-of-Freedom Bilinear Systems. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 130(9), 1309–1319.
[12].            Parsaeeian M., Hoseini Hashemi, B., & Sarvghadmoghadam A. R., 2012 Inelastic Displacement Ratios for Structures on Firm Soil Sites Subjected to Iran Earthquakes Records. Moddaress Civil Engineering, 12(4), 11-25 (In Persian).
[13].            Ruiz-Garcìa J., 2011 Inelastic displacement ratios for seismic assessment of structures subjected to forward-directivity near-fault ground motions. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 15(3), 449–468.
[14].            Zhai C.H., Wen W.P., Zhu T.T., Li S., & Xie L.L., 2013 Inelastic displacement ratios for design of structures with constant damage performance. Engineering Structures,52, 53–63.
[15].            Wen W. P., Zhai C.H., Li S., Chang Z., & Xie L. L. 2014 Constant damage inelastic displacement ratios for the near-fault pulse-like ground motions. Engineering Structures, 59, 599-607.
[16].            McKenna F. Fenves G., Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation. University of California, Berkeley. http://opensees.berkeley.edu, 2000.
[17].            Baker J., 2007 Quantitative classification of near-field ground motion using wavelet analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 97(5), 1486–1501.
[18].            Uang C. M., Maarouf A., 1993 Safety and economy consideration of UBC seismic force reduction factors. In: Proceedings of the 1993 National Conference, Central United States Earthquake Consortium, 121–130.
[19].            Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings FEMA 356 2000. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C, USA.
[20].            Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedure FEMA 440 2005. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC, USA.