加速度敏感非结构部件的合适工程需求参数

IF 4.3 2区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, CIVIL
MirAmir Banihashemi, Lydell Wiebe, André Filiatrault
{"title":"加速度敏感非结构部件的合适工程需求参数","authors":"MirAmir Banihashemi,&nbsp;Lydell Wiebe,&nbsp;André Filiatrault","doi":"10.1002/eqe.4207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Early earthquake design codes used peak ground accelerations (PGAs) as intensity measures (IMs) to characterize the demands of ground motions on structures, but have since shifted towards using spectral accelerations because they provide a better indication of demand. The design of acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components has followed a similar approach, with modern codes being based on an estimate of the spectral acceleration at the period of the nonstructural component. However, most fragility curves for loss assessment of acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components, including the existing FEMA P58 library, continue to be based on peak floor accelerations (PFAs). Similar to PGAs as an IM for buildings, a limitation of PFA as an engineering demand parameter (EDP) for nonstructural components is its lack of dependence on the period of those components. In this study, fifteen alternative EDPs suggested in the literature are evaluated as potential candidates for developing seismic damage fragility curves. Acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components are simulated by single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) components with elastic perfectly plastic behavior, with a period range of 0.01 to 1 s, and varying strength levels. Nonlinear response history analyses are conducted for the SDOFs, using floor motions obtained from both the first floor and the roof of buildings designed with four distinct seismic force-resisting systems. Ductility demands for each SDOF are taken as an indicator of damage and are predicted using a linear regression model developed for each specific EDP. The suitability of candidate EDPs is evaluated based on their efficiency and relative sufficiency. Furthermore, a comparison is made between the expected annual loss calculated using fragility curves derived from the selected EDPs to quantify how the EDP used for a fragility curve can affect the seismic loss assessment. The results reveal that the PFA is a suitable EDP only for nonstructural components with very short periods (i.e., less than 0.1 s). Moreover, although the spectral acceleration at the period of the SDOF nonstructural component is a suitable EDP for components that are nearly elastic and are located on the roof of buildings, the peaks that develop in the floor spectra can grossly overstate the demands on nonstructural components that experience significant nonlinearity in their response. In such situations, an average of the spectral accelerations in a range of periods near the period of the SDOF nonstructural component is more appropriate.</p>","PeriodicalId":11390,"journal":{"name":"Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eqe.4207","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Suitable engineering demand parameters for acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components\",\"authors\":\"MirAmir Banihashemi,&nbsp;Lydell Wiebe,&nbsp;André Filiatrault\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eqe.4207\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Early earthquake design codes used peak ground accelerations (PGAs) as intensity measures (IMs) to characterize the demands of ground motions on structures, but have since shifted towards using spectral accelerations because they provide a better indication of demand. The design of acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components has followed a similar approach, with modern codes being based on an estimate of the spectral acceleration at the period of the nonstructural component. However, most fragility curves for loss assessment of acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components, including the existing FEMA P58 library, continue to be based on peak floor accelerations (PFAs). Similar to PGAs as an IM for buildings, a limitation of PFA as an engineering demand parameter (EDP) for nonstructural components is its lack of dependence on the period of those components. In this study, fifteen alternative EDPs suggested in the literature are evaluated as potential candidates for developing seismic damage fragility curves. Acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components are simulated by single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) components with elastic perfectly plastic behavior, with a period range of 0.01 to 1 s, and varying strength levels. Nonlinear response history analyses are conducted for the SDOFs, using floor motions obtained from both the first floor and the roof of buildings designed with four distinct seismic force-resisting systems. Ductility demands for each SDOF are taken as an indicator of damage and are predicted using a linear regression model developed for each specific EDP. The suitability of candidate EDPs is evaluated based on their efficiency and relative sufficiency. Furthermore, a comparison is made between the expected annual loss calculated using fragility curves derived from the selected EDPs to quantify how the EDP used for a fragility curve can affect the seismic loss assessment. The results reveal that the PFA is a suitable EDP only for nonstructural components with very short periods (i.e., less than 0.1 s). Moreover, although the spectral acceleration at the period of the SDOF nonstructural component is a suitable EDP for components that are nearly elastic and are located on the roof of buildings, the peaks that develop in the floor spectra can grossly overstate the demands on nonstructural components that experience significant nonlinearity in their response. In such situations, an average of the spectral accelerations in a range of periods near the period of the SDOF nonstructural component is more appropriate.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11390,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eqe.4207\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eqe.4207\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, CIVIL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eqe.4207","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

早期的地震设计规范使用峰值地面加速度 (PGA) 作为烈度量度 (IM),以描述地震动对结构的要求,但后来已转向使用频谱加速度,因为频谱加速度能更好地说明要求。对加速度敏感的非结构部分的设计也采用了类似的方法,现代规范都是基于对非结构部分周期的频谱加速度的估计。然而,大多数用于评估对加速度敏感的非结构性构件损失的脆性曲线,包括现有的 FEMA P58 库,仍然基于楼面加速度峰值 (PFA)。与楼面加速度峰值作为建筑物的 IM 相似,楼面加速度峰值作为非结构性构件的工程需求参数 (EDP) 的局限性在于其缺乏对这些构件周期的依赖性。本研究评估了文献中提出的 15 个替代 EDP,作为绘制地震破坏脆性曲线的潜在候选参数。对加速度敏感的非结构构件由具有完全塑性弹性行为的单自由度 (SDOF) 构件模拟,周期范围为 0.01 至 1 秒,强度等级各不相同。利用从采用四种不同抗震系统设计的建筑物首层和屋顶获得的楼层运动,对 SDOF 进行了非线性响应历史分析。将每个 SDOF 的延性要求作为损坏指标,并使用为每个特定 EDP 开发的线性回归模型进行预测。候选 EDP 的适用性根据其效率和相对充分性进行评估。此外,还对根据所选 EDP 得出的脆性曲线计算出的预期年损失进行了比较,以量化脆性曲线所使用的 EDP 对地震损失评估的影响。结果表明,PFA 仅适用于周期很短(即小于 0.1 秒)的非结构部件。此外,虽然 SDOF 非结构组件周期的频谱加速度是一种适用于近似弹性且位于建筑物屋顶的组件的 EDP,但楼层频谱中出现的峰值会严重夸大非结构组件的需求,因为这些组件的响应具有显著的非线性。在这种情况下,采用接近 SDOF 非结构部件周期范围的频谱加速度平均值更为合适。此外,虽然 SDOF 非结构组件周期处的频谱加速度适用于近似弹性且位于建筑物屋顶的组件,但当组件遇到较高程度的非线性行为或安装在较低楼层时,SDOF 非结构组件周期附近的频谱加速度平均值更为合适。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Suitable engineering demand parameters for acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components

Suitable engineering demand parameters for acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components

Early earthquake design codes used peak ground accelerations (PGAs) as intensity measures (IMs) to characterize the demands of ground motions on structures, but have since shifted towards using spectral accelerations because they provide a better indication of demand. The design of acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components has followed a similar approach, with modern codes being based on an estimate of the spectral acceleration at the period of the nonstructural component. However, most fragility curves for loss assessment of acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components, including the existing FEMA P58 library, continue to be based on peak floor accelerations (PFAs). Similar to PGAs as an IM for buildings, a limitation of PFA as an engineering demand parameter (EDP) for nonstructural components is its lack of dependence on the period of those components. In this study, fifteen alternative EDPs suggested in the literature are evaluated as potential candidates for developing seismic damage fragility curves. Acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components are simulated by single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) components with elastic perfectly plastic behavior, with a period range of 0.01 to 1 s, and varying strength levels. Nonlinear response history analyses are conducted for the SDOFs, using floor motions obtained from both the first floor and the roof of buildings designed with four distinct seismic force-resisting systems. Ductility demands for each SDOF are taken as an indicator of damage and are predicted using a linear regression model developed for each specific EDP. The suitability of candidate EDPs is evaluated based on their efficiency and relative sufficiency. Furthermore, a comparison is made between the expected annual loss calculated using fragility curves derived from the selected EDPs to quantify how the EDP used for a fragility curve can affect the seismic loss assessment. The results reveal that the PFA is a suitable EDP only for nonstructural components with very short periods (i.e., less than 0.1 s). Moreover, although the spectral acceleration at the period of the SDOF nonstructural component is a suitable EDP for components that are nearly elastic and are located on the roof of buildings, the peaks that develop in the floor spectra can grossly overstate the demands on nonstructural components that experience significant nonlinearity in their response. In such situations, an average of the spectral accelerations in a range of periods near the period of the SDOF nonstructural component is more appropriate.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 工程技术-工程:地质
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
13.30%
发文量
180
审稿时长
4.8 months
期刊介绍: Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics provides a forum for the publication of papers on several aspects of engineering related to earthquakes. The problems in this field, and their solutions, are international in character and require knowledge of several traditional disciplines; the Journal will reflect this. Papers that may be relevant but do not emphasize earthquake engineering and related structural dynamics are not suitable for the Journal. Relevant topics include the following: ground motions for analysis and design geotechnical earthquake engineering probabilistic and deterministic methods of dynamic analysis experimental behaviour of structures seismic protective systems system identification risk assessment seismic code requirements methods for earthquake-resistant design and retrofit of structures.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信