以改良等效線性化方法進行主震-餘震系列下之RC結構損傷控制耐震設計

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	Lorddy Zefanya Nugroho Lorddy Zefanya Nugroho
論文名稱：	以改良等效線性化方法進行主震-餘震系列下之RC結構損傷控制耐震設計 Damage-Controlling Seismic Design of RC Structures Subjected to Mainshock-Aftershock Sequences Using Modified Equivalent Linearization Method
指導教授：	邱建國 Chien-Kuo Chiu
口試委員:	黃尹男 Yin-Nan Huang 張惠雲 Heui-Yung Chang 林子剛 Tzu-Kang Lin 王柄雄 Ping-Hsiung Wang
學位類別：	博士 Doctor
系所名稱：	工程學院 - 營建工程系 Department of Civil and Construction Engineering
論文出版年：	2023
畢業學年度：	111
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	92
外文關鍵詞：	Mainshock-aftershock sequences, far-fault ground motion, damage control
相關次數：	點閱：142 下載：3
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

上一筆

Recently, the modified equivalent linearization method (MELM) is used to estimate the maximum deformation response for a structure under a near-fault or far-fault ground motion. However, most works in which the equivalent linearization method is used consider only one ground motion. When a reinforced concrete (RC) structure is damaged by a mainshock, which is the main seismic event of an earthquake, its stiffness and strength are reduced by concrete cracking and rebar yielding and then its period is longer in the sequent seismic events or so-called aftershock. Therefore, for seismic design of low- and mid-rise RC structures, this work is aim to propose a simplified method that can be used to quantify the damage that is subjected to an MSAS sequence in a near-fault or far-fault ground motion using MELM. Additionally, a formula that can be used to do the damage-controlling seismic design considering an MSAS sequence is also suggested.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT    i
ABSTRACT    ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS    iii
LIST OF TABLES    v
LIST OF FIGURES    vii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION    1
1.1    Background    1
1.2    Published Paper    4
1.3    Research Motivation    4
1.4    Research Objectives and Scope    5
1.5    Research Outline    6
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW    7
2.1    Period Elongation Subjected to Aftershock    7
2.2    Aftershock Record Simulation    8
2.3    Identification of Near-fault Ground Motion    9
2.4    Equivalent Linearization Method    9
2.5    Modified Equivalent Linearization Method (MELM)    13
2.6    Estimation of Hysteretic Energy Dissipation    15
2.7    Estimation of Cumulative Seismic Damage    17
CHAPTER 3 RESPONSE DUCTILITY RATIO    20
3.1    Database of Mainshock-Aftershock (MSAS) Sequence    20
3.1.1 Selection of an MSAS sequence    20
3.1.2 Scaling method for an MSAS sequence    24
3.2    Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis (NDA)    24
3.3    Modified Equivalent Linearization Method (MELM)    31
3.3.1 MELM for an equivalent SDOF system under an MSAS sequence    31
3.3.2 Verification of MELM for an MSAS sequence using NDA    34
CHAPTER 4 DAMAGE-CONTROLLING SEISMIC DESIGN OF RC BUILDING    43
4.1    General Remark    43
4.2    Formulas for Estimating Equivalent Number of Cycle    43
4.3    Formulas for Estimating Hysteretic Energy Dissipation    46
4.4    Formulas for Estimating Seismic Damage    48
4.5    Damage-controlling Seismic Design of an Equivalent SDOF RC Building    54
CHAPTER 5 DAMAGE-CONTROLLING SEISMIC DESIGN OF RC BRIDGE PIER    63
5.1    Practical Method to Estimate Maximum Deformation Response for an Equivalent SDOF RC Bridge Pier Using MELM    63
5.2    Practical Method to Estimate Cumulative Damage for an Equivalent SDOF RC Bridge Pier Considering MSAS Sequence    70
5.3    Damage-Controlling Seismic Design of an Equivalent SDOF RC Bridge Pier    76
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION    83
6.1    Conclusion    83
6.2    Suggestions for Future Research    84
REFERENCE    85

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Polynomial coefficients    8
Table 3.1 The NF ground motion that are considered in this work    20
Table 3.2 The FF ground motion that are considered in this work    22
Table 3.3 The parameter of the Takeda model    26
Table 3.4 Root-mean-square-error values of MELM of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure under NF ground motions    42
Table 3.5 Root-mean-square-error values of MELM of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure under FF ground motions    42
Table 4.1 Correlation between the earthquake indices and neq    43
Table 4.2 Root-mean-square-error values of the equivalent number of cycles of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure in NF ground motions    45
Table 4.3 Root-mean-square-error values of the equivalent number of cycles of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure in FF ground motions    46
Table 4.4 Root-mean-square-error values of Eh/M of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure in NF ground motions    47
Table 4.5 Root-mean-square-error values of Eh/M of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure in FF ground motions    47
Table 4.6 Root-mean-square-error values of DI of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure estimation in NF ground motions    53
Table 4.7 Root-mean-square-error values of DI of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure estimation in FF ground motions    54
Table 4.8 The damage-controlling minimal yielding strength of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure in NF ground motion    58
Table 4.9 The damage-controlling minimal yielding strength of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure in FF ground motion.    59
Table 5.1 Root-mean-square-error values of MELM of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier under NF ground motions.    69
Table 5.2 Root-mean-square-error values of MELM of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier under FF ground motions    69
Table 5.3 Root-mean-square-error values of neq of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier structure in NF ground motions.    70
Table 5.4 Root-mean-square-error values of neq of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier structure in FF ground motions.    70
Table 5.5 Root-mean-square-error values of Eh/M of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier structure in NF ground motions.    72
Table 5.6 Root-mean-square-error values of Eh/M of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier structure in FF ground motions    72
Table 5.7 Root-mean-square-error values of DI estimation of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier structure in NF ground motions    76
Table 5.8 Root-mean-square-error values of DI estimation of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier structure in FF ground motions    76
Table 5.9 Damage classification for RC structures    76
Table 5.10 The damage-controlling minimal yielding strength of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier structure in NF ground motion    79
Table 5.11 The damage-controlling minimal yielding strength of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier structure in FF ground motion    80

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Comparison of period shifts and equivalent damping ratios in four approximate methods.    11
Figure 2.2 Illustration of initial-stiffness and secant stiffness concepts related to a structure nonlinear response    11
Figure 2.3 Comparison between  exact and approximation subjected to the near-fault ground motions    17
Figure 2.4 Comparison between  exact and approximation subjected to the far-fault ground motions    17
Figure 2.5 The optimal intensity measures for damage potential prediction of MSAS sequences [45]    19
Figure 3.1 Research methodology of this work    26
Figure 3.2 The illustration of the Takeda model    27
Figure 3.3 The illustration of the SDOF structure    27
Figure 3.4 Selected acceleration response spectrum based on Table 3.1 and 3.2: (a) Near-fault, SF=1.0; (b) Far-fault, SF=1.0    28
Figure 3.5 Illustration in estimating the maximum deformation response that is subjected to an MSAS sequence    28
Figure 3.6 Nonlinear dynamic analysis of an equivalent SDOF system with Hr = 10 m under an NF ground motion    30
Figure 3.7 Nonlinear dynamic analysis of an equivalent SDOF system with Hr = 10 m under an FF ground motion    31
Figure 3.8 Procedure in estimating the response ductility ratio of SDOF RC building structure under an MSAS sequence using MELM    34
Figure 3.9 Response ductility ratio of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure with Hr = 10 m under an NF ground motion    36
Figure 3.10 Response ductility ratio of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure with Hr = 20 m under an NF ground motion    37
Figure 3.11 Response ductility ratio of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure with Hr = 30 m under an NF ground motion    38
Figure 3.12 Response ductility ratio of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure with Hr = 10 m under an FF ground motion    39
Figure 3.13 Response ductility ratio of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure with Hr = 20 m under an FF ground motion    40
Figure 3.14 Response ductility ratio of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure with Hr = 30 m under an FF ground motion    41
Figure 4.1 Comparison between estimated and simulated values of   of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure under an MSAS sequence in NF ground motions    45
Figure 4.2 Comparison between estimated and simulated values of   of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure under an MSAS sequence in FF ground motions    45
Figure 4.3 Comparison between estimated and simulated values of   of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure under an MSAS sequence in NF ground motions    47
Figure 4.4 Comparison between estimated and simulated values of   of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure under an MSAS sequence in FF ground motions    48
Figure 4.5 Comparison of damage index of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure with Hr = 10 m under an FF ground motion    49
Figure 4.6 Comparison of damage index of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure with Hr = 20 m under an FF ground motion    50
Figure 4.7 Comparison of damage index of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure with Hr = 30 m under an FF ground motion    51
Figure 4.8 Comparison of damage index of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure with Hr = 10 m under an NF ground motion    51
Figure 4.9 Comparison of damage index of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure with Hr = 20 m under an NF ground motion    52
Figure 4.10 Comparison of damage index of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure with Hr = 30 m under an NF ground motion    53
Figure 4.11 The minimum-required ductility capacity of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure under MSAS sequences with various SF values    55
Figure 4.12 The relationship between aftershock scaling factor (SF), ductility capacity (R), and important factor (IF) of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure in NF ground motion    61
Figure 4.13 The relationship between aftershock scaling factor (SF), ductility capacity (R), and important factor (IF) of an equivalent SDOF RC building structure in FF ground motion    62
Figure 5.1 Procedure in estimating the response ductility ratio of SDOF RC bridge pier under an MSAS sequence using MELM    64
Figure 5.2 Response ductility ratio of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier with Hr = 5 m under an NF ground motion    65
Figure 5.3 Response ductility ratio of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier with Hr = 15 m under an NF ground motion    66
Figure 5.4 Response ductility ratio of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier with Hr = 25 m under an NF ground motion    66
Figure 5.5 Response ductility ratio of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier with Hr = 5 m under an FF ground motion    67
Figure 5.6 Response ductility ratio of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier with Hr = 15 m under an FF ground motion    68
Figure 5.7 Response ductility ratio of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier with Hr = 25 m under an FF ground motion    68
Figure 5.8 Comparison between estimated and simulated values of   of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier structure under an MSAS sequence in NF ground motions    71
Figure 5.9 Comparison between estimated and simulated values of   of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier structure under an MSAS sequence in NF ground motions    71
Figure 5.10 Comparison between estimated and simulated values of   of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier structure under an MSAS sequence in NF ground motions    72
Figure 5.11 Comparison between estimated and simulated values of   of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier structure under an MSAS sequence in FF ground motions    73
Figure 5.12 Comparison of damage index of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier with Hr = 5 m under an FF ground motion    74
Figure 5.13 Comparison of damage index of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier with Hr = 15 m under an FF ground motion    74
Figure 5.14 Comparison of damage index of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier with Hr = 25 m under an FF ground motion    74
Figure 5.15 Comparison of damage index an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier with Hr = 5 m under an NF ground motion    75
Figure 5.16 Comparison of damage index of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier with Hr = 15 m under an NF ground motion    75
Figure 5.17 Comparison of damage index of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier with Hr = 25 m under an NF ground motion    75
Figure 5.18 The minimum-required ductility capacity of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier under MSAS sequences with various SF values    77
Figure 5.19 The relationship between aftershock scaling factor (SF), ductility capacity (R), and important factor (IF) of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier structure in NF ground motion    81
Figure 5.20 The relationship between aftershock scaling factor (SF), ductility capacity (R), and important factor (IF) of an equivalent SDOF RC bridge pier structure in FF ground motion    82
                                

[1] Y. T. Lee, D. L. Turcotte, J. B. Rundle, and C. C. Chen, “Aftershock statistics of the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake and the concept of Omori times,” Pure Appl. Geophys, vol. 170, pp. 221-228, 2013.
https://doi:10.1007/s00024-011-0445-5
[2] R. Pang, B. Xu, X. Zhang, Y. Zhou, X. Kong, “Seismic performance investigation of high CFRDs subjected to mainshock-aftershock sequences,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 116, pp. 82-85, 2019.
[3] A. E. Abdelnaby, “Fragility curves for RC frames subjected to Tohoku mainshock-aftershock sequences,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 22, pp. 902-920, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1264328
[4] F. E. Udwadia, M. D. Trifunac, “Time and amplitude dependent response of structures,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 359-378, 1973.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290020406
[5] S. H. Jeong, A. S. Elnashai, “Analytical and experimental seismic assessment of irregular RC buildings,” Proceedings of 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. 113, 2004.
[6] M. D. Trifunac, S. S. Ivanović, M. I. Todorovska, “Apparent periods of a building. I: Fourier analysis,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 127, no. 5, pp. 517-526, 2001.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2001)127:5(517)
[7] F. Dunand, P. Gueguen, P-Y. Bars, J. Rodgers, M. Celebi, “Comparison of the dynamic parameters extracted from weak, moderate and strong building motion,” Proceeding of the 1st European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, vol. 1021, 2006.
[8] G. M. Calvi, R. Pinho, H. Crowley, “State-of-the-knowledge on the period elongation of RC buildings during strong ground shaking,” Proceedings of the 1st European Conference of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, vol. 1535, 2006.
[9] E. I. Katsanos, A. G. Sextos, A. S. Elnashai, “Period elongation of nonlinear systems modeled with degrading hysteretic rules,” Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, 2012.
[10] S. A. Mahin, “Effects of duration and aftershocks on inelastic design earthquakes,” Proceedings of the 7th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. 5, pp. 677-680, 1980.
[11] C. Amadio, M. Fragiacomo, S. Rajgelj, “The effects of repeated earthquake ground motions on the non‐linear response of SDOF systems,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 291-308, 2003.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.225
[12] G. D. Hatzigeorgiou, D. E. Beskos, “Inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF structures subjected to repeated earthquakes,” Engineering Structures, vol. 31, pp. 2744-2755, 2009.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.07.002
[13] G. D. Hatzigeorgiou, “Ductility demand spectra for multiple near-and far-fault earthquakes,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 170-183, 2010.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.10.003
[14] G. D. Hatzigeorgiou, A. A. Liolios, “Nonlinear behaviour of RC frames under repeated strong ground motions,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 30, no. 10, pp. 1010-1025, 2010.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.04.013
[15] M. Raghunandan, A. B. Liel, N. Luco, “Aftershock collapse vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete frame structures,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 419-439, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2478
[16] W. Wen, C. Zhai, D. Ji, “Damage spectra of global crustal seismic sequences considering scaling issues of aftershock ground motions,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, vol. 47, no. 10, pp. 2076-2093, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3056
[17] W. Wen, D. Ji, and C. Zhai, “Cumulative damage of structures under the mainshock-aftershock sequences in the near-fault region,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 2088-2102, 2022.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1754307
[18] W. Wen, D. Ji, C. Zhai, “Effects of ground motion scaling on the response of structures considering the interdependency between intensity measures and scale factors,” Engineering Structures, vol. 209, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.110007
[19] C. K. Chiu, L. Z. Nugroho, W. I. Liao, “Estimation of seismic damage induced by near- and far-fault earthquakes using modified equivalent linearization method of mid-rise RC buildings,” International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamic, vol. 20, no. 13, 2041017, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219455420410175
[20] C. K. Chiu, L. Z. Nugroho, S. Gautama, F.P. Hsiao, “Reliability-based constant-damage ductility demand spectra of mid-rise RC building structures using modified equivalent linearization method,” Structure and Infrastructure Eng, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 495-516, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2019.1668437
[21] Y. J. Park, H. S. Ang, Y. K. Wen, “Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 111, no. 4, 1985.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1985)111:4(740)
[22] S. Otani, “Hysteresis models of reinforced concrete for earthquake response analysis, Journal (B), The Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo, Vol XXXVI, No. 2, pp. 125 – 159, 1981.
[23] J. F. Clinton, S. C. Bradford, T. H. Heaton, J. Favela, “The observed wander of the natural frequencies in a structure,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 237 – 257, 2006.
https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050052
[24] A. Elnashai, R. Pinho, & C. Vaz, “Experimental observations from shaking-table test on selective techniques for repair and strengthening of RC walls,” Proceedings 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, Paper, Vol. 2245, 2000.
[25] EC8, Eurocode 8: Design provisions of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, Part 2: Bridges. Final Draft prEN1998-1 and -2, CEN, Belgium, 2004.
[26] M. Fragiacomo, C. Amadio, L. Macorini, “Seismic response of steel frames under repeated earthquake ground motions,” Engineering Structures, vol. 26, no. 13, pp. 2021-2035, 2004.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.08.005
[27] Q. Li, B. R. Ellingwood, “Performance evaluation and damage assessment of steel frame buildings under main shock–aftershock earthquake sequences,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 405-427, 2007.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.667
[28] J. Ruiz-García, J. C. Negrete-Manriquez, “Evaluation of drift demands in existing steel frames under as-recorded far-field and near-fault mainshock–aftershock seismic sequences,” Engineering Structures, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 621-634, 2011.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.11.021
[29] P. G. Somerville, N. F. Smith, R. W. Graves, N. A. Abrahamson, “Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity,” Seismological Research Letter, vol. 68, no. 199-222, 1997.
https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.68.1.199
[30] S. K. Shahi, J. W. Baker, “An efficient algorithm to identify strong-velocity pulses in micro-component ground motion,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, vol. 104, no. 5, pp. 2456-2466, 2014.
https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130191
[31] E. Rosenblueth and I. Herrera, “On a kind of hysteretic damping,” J. Eng. Mech. Div., vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 37-48, 1964.
[32] P. Gulkan, M. Sozen, "Inelastic response of reinforced concrete structures to earthquake motions," ACI Journal, vol. 71, no. 12, pp. 604-610, 1974.
[33] W. D. Iwan, "Estimating inelastic response spectra from elastic spectra," Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 8, pp. 375-388, 1980.
[34] M. J. Kowalsky, “Displacement-based design-a methodology for seismic design applied to RC bridge columns,” Master’s Thesis, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California, 1994.
[35] E. Miranda and J. Ruiz-Garcia, "Evaluation of approximate methods to estimate maximum inelastic displacement demands," Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 31, pp. 539-560, 2002.
[36] H. Okano, Y. Miyamoto, “Equation derrived from equivalent linearization method - consideration based on energy and its application to evaluation probability of excess of deformation capacity,” Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering (AIJ), vol. 67, no. 562, pp. 45-52, 2002.
[37] AIJ, “Guidelines for performance evaluation of earthquake resistant reinforced concrete buildings (Draft),” Achitecture Institute of Japan, Tokyo, 2005.
[38] A. Tena-Colunga, "Displacement ductility demand spectra for the seismic evaluation of structures," Engineering Structures, vol. 23, pp. 1319-1330, 2001.
[39] ATC 40, “Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings volume 1,” Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California, 1996.
[40] Federal Emergency Management Agency, “NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions: Design Examples (FEMA P-1051),” Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C, 2015.
[41] International Code Council, International Building Code of USA, 2000.
[42] J. F. Chai , T. J. Teng, "Seismic design force for buildings in Taiwan," in Proceedings of the fifthteenth world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 2012.
[43] C-H. Zhai, W-P. Wen, S. Li, Z. Chen, Z. Chang, L-L. Xie, “The damage investigation of inelastic SDOF structure under the mainshock-aftershock sequence-type ground motions,” Soil Dynamic and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 59, pp. 30-41, 2014.
[44] R. Greco, G. C. Marano, A. Fiore, “Damage-based inelastic seismic spectra,” International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamic, vol. 17, no. 10, 2017.
[45] Z. Zhou, X. Yu, D. Lu, ”Identifying optimal intensity measures for predicting damage potential of mainshock–aftershock sequences,” Applied Sciences, vol. 10, no. 19, 2020.
[46] Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) Strong Motion Database on Line. Berkeley.
https://peer.berkeley.edu/peer-strong-ground-motion-databases
[47] C. Zhai, J. Kong, X. Wang, Z. Chen, “Experimental and finite element analytical investigation of seismic behavior of full-scale masonry infilled RC frames,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 1171-1198, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1138171
[48] S. Amiri, E. Bojórquez, “Residual displacement ratios of structures under mainshock-aftershock sequences,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 121, pp. 179-193, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.03.021
[49] T. Takeda, M.A. Sozen, N. N. Nielsen, “Reinforced concrete response to simulate earthquakes,” Journal of the Structural Division, vol. 96, no. 12, 1970.
https://doi.org/10.1061/JSDEAG.0002765
[50] K. W. Campbell, Y. Bozorgnia, “A ground motion prediction equation for the horizontal component of cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) based on the PEER-NGA strong motion database,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 635-650, 2010.
https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3457158
[51] B. A. Bradley, “Empirical correlation between cumulative absolute velocity and amplitude-based ground motion intensity measures,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 37-54, 2012.
https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3675580
[52] G. Manfredi, “Evaluation of seismic energy demand,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 30, pp. 485-499, 2001.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.17
[53] M. D. Trifunac, A. G. Brady, “A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 581-626, 1975.
https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0650030581
[54] Y. K. Yeh, L. L. Chung, W. Y. Chien, J. F. Chai, F. P. Hsiao, W. C. Shen, T. C. Chiou, T. K. Chow, Y. F. Chao, Y. S. Yang, S. J. Hwang, “Technology Handbook for Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of School Buildings,” National Center For Research on Earthquake Engineering, NCREE-08-023, Taipei, Taiwan (in Chinese), 2008.
[55] Construction and Planning Agency Ministry of The Interior, Seismic Design Specifications and Commentary of Buildings (in Chinese), 2011.
[56] JBDPA, Guideline for post-earthquake damage evaluation and rehabilitation of RC buildings. Tokyo: The Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association. 2001.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文