Comparison of Fragility Assessment Isolated Structures Mounted on TCFP Bearings Subjected to Near Field and Far Field Earthquakes

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 M.Sc. student of structural Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

2 Professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic), Tehran, Iran

Abstract

In recent years, isolated systems are noted for preserving structures against harmful effects of earthquakes. Across all types of friction isolators, the latest one, triple concave friction pendulum, is transcending for its hardening behavior in high risk states. Isolated systems dissipate energy of earthquakes by increasing period and damping. In this paper, the behavior of structures (3, 6, and 9 stories) mounted on TCFP subjected to near-field and far-field earthquakes are studied using fragility curves concept. Results indicate by increasing the effective period of TCFP decreases the median acceleration of collapse damage state (Sa-50% collapse). For better understanding the behavior of TCFP isolators with different effective periods, collapse margin ratio is also used, that demonstrates isolator with higher period reduces collapse risk. Comparing Sa-50% collapse in structure subjected to near-field and far-field earthquakes shows that the structure subjected to near field earthquake is less than the far field one. 

Keywords

References

1- Zayas, V., Low, S., Bozzo, L. and Mahin S.A., 1989, Feasibility and performance studies on improve the earthquake resistance of new and existing building using the Friction Pendulum system, Report No.UCB/EERC-89/09, Earthquake Research Center, University of Berkeley.
2- Tsopelas, P., Constantinou, M.C., Kim Y. S. and Okamoto S., 1996, Experimental Study of FPS System in Bridge Seismic Isolation, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 25, 65-78. 
3- Khoshnoudian, F. and Rabie, M. 2011, Response of Multistory Friction Pendulum Base-isolated Buildings including the Vertical Component of Earthquakes, Canadian journal of Civil Engineering, 38(10), 1045–1059.
4- Castaldo, P., Mancini, G. and Palazzo, B., 2018, Seismic reliability-based robustness assessment of three-dimensional reinforced concrete systems equipped with single-concave sliding devices, Engineering Structures, 163, 373-387.
5- Tsai, C.S., Chen, B.J., Pong, WS. and Chiang, TC., 2004, Interactive Behavior of Structures with Multiple Friction Pendulum Isolation System and Unbounded Foundations, Advances in Structural Engineering, 7, 539–551.
6- Fenz, D. and Constantinou, M.C. 2006, Behavior of the double concave friction pendulum bearing, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 35, 1403–1424.
7- Rabie, M. and Khoshnoudian, F., 2013, Seismic response of elevated liquid storage tanks using double concave friction pendulum bearings with tri-linear behavior, Advances in structural engineering, 16, 315–338.
8- Khoshnoudian, F. and Hemmati, A., 2013, Impact of structures with double concave friction pendulum bearings on adjacent structures, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Structures and buildings, 167, 41–53.
9- Zhou, F., Xiang, W., Ye, K. and Zhu, H., 2019, Theoretical study of the double concave friction pendulum system under variable vertical loading, Advances in structural engineering, 22(8), 1998-2005.
10- Fenz, D. and Constantinou, M. C., 2008, Modeling Triple Friction Pendulum Bearings for Response History Analysis, Earthquake Spectra, 24(4), 1011-1028.
11- Fadi, F. and Constantinou, M. C., 2009, Evaluation of Simplified Methods for Analysis for structures with Triple Friction Pendulum isolators, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 39, 5-22.
12- Morgan, T.A. and Mahin, S. A., 2011, The Use of Base Isolation Systems to Achieve Complex Seismic Performance Objectives, Technical Report PEER 2011/06, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
13- Becker, T.C. and Mahin, S. A., 2012, Experimental and Analytical study of the Bi-directional Behavior of the Triple Friction Pendulum Isolator, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 41, 355-373.
14- Loghman, V. and Khoshnoudian, F., 2015, Comparison of Seismic Behavior of Long Period SDOF Systems Mounted on Friction Isolators under Near-Field Earthquakes, Smart Structures and Systems, 14(4), 1-23.
15-Loghman, V.,Tajammolian, H. and Khoshnoudian, F., 2015a, Effects of rotational components of earthquakes on seismic responses of triple concave friction pendulum base-isolated structures, Journal of Vibration and Control, 23, 1495-1517.
16- Loghman, V., Khosnoudian, F. and Banazadeh, M., 2015b, Effects of vertical component of earthquake on seismic responses of triple concave friction pendulum base-isolated structures, Journal of Vibration and Control, 21, 2099-2113.
17- Fallahian, M., Khoshnoudian, F. and Loghman, V., 2015, Torsionally Seismic Behavior of Triple Concave Friction Pendulum Bearing, Advances in Structural Engineering, 18(12), 2151-2166.
18- Tajammolian, H., Khoshnoudian, F and Partovi Mehr, N., 2016, Seismic Responses of Isolated Structures with Mass Asymmetry Mounted on TCFP Subjected to Near-Fault Ground Motions, International Journal of Civil Engineering, 14, 573-584.
19- Becker, T.C., Bao, Y. and Mahin, S. A., 2017, Extreme behavior in a triple friction pendulum isolated frame, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 46(15), 2683-2698.
20- Xu, Y., Guo, T. and Yan, P., 2019, Design optimization of triple friction pendulums for base-isolated high-rise buildings, Advances in Structural Engineering, 22(13), 2727-2740.
21- Dao, N.D., Ryan, K.L. and Nguyen-Van, H., 2019, Evaluating simplified models in predicting global seismic responses of a shake table-test building isolated by triple friction pendulum bearings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 48(6), 594-610.
22- HAZUS, 2003, HAZUS-MH 2.1Advance Engineering Building Module,  Technical and User’s Manual, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security Emergency Mitigation Division.
23- Constantinou, M. C, Kalpakidis, I., Filiatrault, A. and Ecker Lay, R. A., 2011, LRFD-Based Analysis and Design Procedures for Bridge Bearings and Seismic Isolation, Technical Report No. MCEER-11-0004, New York, Buffalo.
24- Fenz, D. and Constantinou, M. C., 2008, Mechanical Behavior of Multi-Spherical Sliding Bearings, Report No. MCEER-08/0007, New York, Buffalo: MCEER.
25- Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997, Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factor (FEMA-P695), Applied Technology Council.
26- Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, CA., 2003, Incremental dynamic analysis, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31, 491–514.
27- Zhang, J. and Huo, Y., 2009, Evaluating effectiveness and optimum design of isolation devices for highway bridges using the fragility   function method, Engineering Structure, 31, 1648–1660 (2009).
28- Tavares, D. H., Suescun, J. R., Paulter, P., and Padgett, J. E., 2013, Seismic Fragility of a Highway Bridge in Quebec, Journal of Bridge Engineering, 18(11), 1131-1139.
29- Han, R., Li, Y. and Van de Lindt, J., 2014, Seismic risk of base isolated non-ductile reinforced concrete buildings considering uncertainties and mainshock–aftershock sequences, Structural Safety, 50, 39-56.
30- Zhou,C. Zeng, X. Pan, Q. and Liu, B., 2014, Seismic fragility assessment of a tall reinforced concrete chimney, Structure Design Tall Special Buildings, 24(6), 440-460.
31- Phan, HN., Paolacci, F., Uckan, C, and Shen, J. J., 2016, Seismic vulnerability mitigation of liquefied gas tanks using concave sliding bearings, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 14, 3283–3299.
32- Castaldo, P., Amendola, G. and Palazzo, B., 2017, Seismic fragility and reliability of structures isolated by friction pendulum devices: seismic reliability-based design (SRBD), Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 46, 425-446.
33- Castaldo, P., Amendola, G. and Ripani, M., 2018, Seismic fragility of structures isolated by single concave sliding devices for different soil conditions, Earthquake Engineering and engineering vibration, 17, 869-891.
34- ASCE7-10, 2010, Minimum Design Loads for Building and Other Structures, Published by American Society of Civil Engineers. Virginia, USA.
35- AISC 360-10, 2010, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, Published by American Institute of Steel Construction. Chicago, Illinois, USA.
36- AISC 341-10, 2010, Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, Published by American Institute of Steel Construction. Chicago, Illinois, USA.
37- PEER. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees) development platform by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). http://opensees.berkeley.edu. (2008).
38- Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Scott, M. H, and Fenves, G. L., 2007, OpenSees command language manual, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 451.
Advance Researches in Civil Engineering
Volume 4, Issue 4 - Serial Number 4
December 2022
Pages 1-15

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics