Research PaperNo Access

Approximate Quantification of Higher-Mode Effects on Seismic Demands of Buildings

Jui-Liang Lin

National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, 200, Section 3, XinHai Rd., Taipei 106, Taiwan, ROC

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219455419500238Cited by:8 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

Quantifying the higher-mode effects on the seismic demands of buildings may benefit not only the awareness of characteristics of the seismic responses of buildings, but also the development of rapid/simplified methods for the seismic assessment of buildings. This study proposes an approach that is applicable for quantifying the aforementioned effects, covering the full range of building heights and deformation types. The vehicle used in this proposed approach is the generalized building model, which has been modified from the conventional cantilever beam model. In addition to building height and deformation type, the strength ratio of each vibration mode and the site class of buildings are the parameters considered in this study. The higher-mode effects on floor displacements, inter-story drift ratios, floor accelerations, and base shears with relation to the aforementioned parameters are investigated. Finally, the proposed approach is verified via the investigation of the higher-mode effects of a 20-story exemplar building.

Keywords:

Remember to check out the Most Cited Articles!
Remember to check out the structures

References

1. R. Rosman, Laterally loaded systems consisting of walls and frames, in Tall Buildings (Pergamon Press Ltd., London, England, 1967), pp. 273–289. Crossref, Google Scholar
2. A. C. Heidebrecht and B. S. Smith, Approximate analysis of tall wall-frame structures, J. Struct. Div. 99 (1973) 199–221. Crossref, Google Scholar
3. J. S. Kuang and S. C. Ng, Coupled vibration of tall building structures, Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 13 (2004) 291–303. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
4. E. Miranda and S. Taghavi, Approximate floor acceleration demands in multistory buildings I: Formulation, J. Struct. Eng. 131 (2) (2005) 203–211. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
5. B. Di and X. Fu, Seismic behavior of shear wall-frame systems considering foundation stiffness, Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 17 (2017) 1750041. Link, Web of Science, Google Scholar
6. W. J. Goodsir, T. Paulay and A. J. Carr, A study of the inelastic seismic response of reinforced concrete coupled frame-shear wall structures, Bull. NZ Nat. Soc. Earthq. Eng. 16 (1983) 185–200. Google Scholar
7. A. J. Kappos and P. S. Antoniadis, Evaluations and suggestions for improvement of seismic design procedures for R/C walls in dual systems, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 40 (2011) 35–53. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
8. M. Panagiotou and J. I. Restrepo, Dual-plastic hinge design concept for reducing higher-mode effects on high-rise cantilever wall buildings, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 38 (2009) 1359–1380. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
9. C. A. Maniatakis, I. N. Psycharis and C. C. Spyrakos, Effect of higher modes on the seismic response and design of moment-resisting RC frame structures, Eng. Struct. 56 (2013) 417–430. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
10. A. Rutenberg, Seismic shear forces on RC walls: Review and bibliography, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 11 (5) (2013) 1726–1751. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
11. L. Wiebe and C. Christopoulos, A cantilever beam analogy for quantifying higher mode effects in multistory buildings, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 44 (11) (2015) 1697–1716. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
12. ATC, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, Report ATC-40. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California (1996). Google Scholar
13. A. K. Chopra and R. K. Goel, A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 31 (2002) 561–582. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
14. FEMA-440, State Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures, prepared by Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC (2005). Google Scholar
15. ASCE, Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE/SEI 7–10. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA (2010). Google Scholar
16. A. K. Chopra, R. K. Goel and C. Chintanapakdee, Evaluation of a modified MPA procedure assuming higher modes as elastic to estimate seismic demands, Earthq. Spectra 20 (2004) 757–778. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
17. C. Chintanapakdee and A. K. Chopra, Evaluation of modal pushover analysis using generic frames, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 32 (2003) 417–442. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
18. NZS, NZS 3101: Part1, Concrete Structures Standard; Part 2 Commentary on the design of concrete structures, New Zealand Standards. Wellington (2006). Google Scholar
19. CEB, Model code for seismic design of concrete structures. Bulletin d’Information, Comite Europeen du Beton, No. 165. Lausanne, Switzerland (1985). Google Scholar
20. A. T. Derecho et al., Structural walls in earthquake resistant buildings, dynamic analysis of isolated structural walls–development of design procedure, design force level, Final Report to the National Science Foundation ASRA. Construction Technology Laboratories, PCA, Skokie (1981). Google Scholar
21. H. Y. Deng, X. Y. Jin and M. Gu, A simplified method for evaluating the dynamic properties of structures considering soil–pile–structure interaction, Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dynam. 18 (2018) 1871005. Link, Web of Science, Google Scholar
22. FEMA-355C, State of the art report on systems performance of steel moment frames subject to earthquake ground shaking, prepared by the SAC Joint Venture for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000). Google Scholar
23. UBC, Structural Engineering Design Provisions. Uniform Building Code, Vol. 2, International Conference of Building Officials (1994). Google Scholar
24. B. Z. Lin, M. C. Chuang and K. C. Tsai, Object-oriented development and application of a nonlinear structural analysis framework, Adv. Eng. Softw. 40 (2009) 66–82. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar