Historical Evolution of the Impact of Seismic Incident Angles on the Safety Assessment of Various Building Construction Typologies
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Definitions and First Developments
2.1. Definitions
- The simultaneity concept considers that the three seismic components simultaneously act during the earthquake;
- The directionality considers that the main seismic component acts along the axis that connects the epicentre to the structure;
- According to the multidirectionality idea, the position of the epicentre of the design earthquake is not known a priori nor is the direction along which the main earthquake component could act, and for this reason, the structure should be analysed using different angles of seismic incidence.
2.2. Combination Rules in Linear Analyses
2.3. Combination Rules in Nonlinear Static Procedures
3. Evaluation of Directionality Effects Based on Analysis Method
3.1. Response Spectrum Analysis
3.2. Linear Response History Analysis
3.3. Nonlinear Static Analysis
3.4. Nonlinear Response History Analysis
4. Analysis and Discussion
5. Standards
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Penzien, J.; Watabe, M. Characteristics of 3-dimensional earthquake ground motions. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1974, 3, 365–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López, O.A.; Hernández, J.J.; Bonilla, R.; Fernández, A. Response spectra for multicomponent structural analysis. Earthq. Spectra 2006, 22, 85–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lagaros, N.D. Multicomponent incremental dynamic analysis considering variable incident angle. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2010, 6, 77–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newmark, N.M.; Rosenblueth, E. Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1971. [Google Scholar]
- Goodman, L.E.; Rosenblueth, E.; Newmark, N.M. A Seismic Design of Elastic Structures Founded on Firm Ground; Technical Report; University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, College of Engineering. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Champaign, IL, USA, 1952. [Google Scholar]
- Der Kiureghian, A. A response spectrum method for random vibration analysis of MDF systems. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1981, 9, 419–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, E.L.; Der Kiureghian, A.; Bayo, E.P. A replacement for the SRSS method in seismic analysis. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1981, 9, 187–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newmark, N.M. Seismic design criteria for structures and facilities, Trans-Alaska pipeline system. In Proceedings of the U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 18–20 June 1975; pp. 94–103. [Google Scholar]
- Rosenblueth, E.; Contreras, H. Approximate design for multicomponent earthquakes. J. Eng. Mech. Div. 1977, 103, 881–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, E.L.; Suharwardy, I.; Habibullah, A. A clarification of the orthogonal effects in a three-dimensional seismic analysis. Earthq. Spectra 1995, 11, 659–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smeby, W.; Der Kiureghian, A. Modal combination rules for multi-component earthquake excitation. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1985, 13, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menun, C.; Der Kiureghian, A. A replacement for the 30%, 40% and SRSS rules for multicomponent seismic analysis. Earthq. Spectra 1998, 14, 153–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menun, C.; Der Kiureghian, A. Envelopes for seismic response vectors. I: Theory. J. Struct. Eng. 2000, 126, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menun, C.; Der Kiureghian, A. Envelopes for seismic response vectors. II: Application. J. Struct. Eng. 2000, 126, 474–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López, O.A.; Chopra, A.K.; Hernández, J.J. Evaluation of combination rules for maximum response calculation in multicomponent seismic analysis. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2001, 30, 1379–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López, O.A.; Chopra, A.K.; Hernández, J.J. Adapting the CQC3 rule for three seismic components with different spectra. J. Struct. Eng. 2004, 130, 403–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camata, G.; Canducci, G.; Spacone, E. Input sismico multidirezionale: Regole di combinazione direzionale e di Progetto. In Atti del XII Convegno dell’Associazione Nazionale Italiana di Ingegneria Sismica; ANIDIS: Pisa, Italy, 2007; XII Proceeding ANIDIS L’ingegneria Sismica in Italia Pisa Giugno 2007. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Burton, H.V.; Dai, K. Combination rules used to account for orthogonal seismic effects: State-of-the-art review. J. Struct. Eng. 2019, 145, 03119001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eurocode 8-Part 1: Eurocode 8. Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures. Part 1-1: General Rules–Seismic Actions and General Requirements for Structures. ENV 1998-1; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
- FEMA-273 Building Seismic Safety Council. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings; Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
- UBC. Uniform Building Code (UBC); Division IV International Conference of Building Officials: Whittier CA, USA, 1997.
- D.M. 17/01/2018; Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni, D.M. 17/01/2018. Gazzetta Ufficiale: Rome, Italy, 2018.
- Circolare Ministeriale n. 7 del 21/01/2019. Istruzioni per L’applicazione dell’«Aggiornamento delle “Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni”» di cui al Decreto Ministeriale 17 Gennaio 2018. G.U. n. 35 del 11/02/2019; Circolare Ministeriale: Rome, Italy, 2019.
- ASCE41-17; Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2017.
- ASCE/SEI 7-10; Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other Structures. ASCE Standard, American Society of Civil Engineers, Structural Engineering Institute: Reston, VA, USA, 2010.
- D’Ambrisi, A.; De Stefano, M.; Tanganelli, M. Use of pushover analysis for predicting seismic response of irregular buildings: A case study. J. Earthq. Eng. 2009, 13, 1089–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kreslin, M.; Fajfar, P. The extended N2 method considering higher mode effects in both plan and elevation. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2012, 10, 695–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bosco, M.; Ghersi, A.; Marino, E.M. Corrective eccentricities for assessment by the nonlinear static method of 3D structures subjected to bidirectional ground motions. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2012, 41, 1751–1773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fujii, K. Assessment of pushover-based method to a building with bidirectional set-back. Earthq. Struct. 2016, 11, 421–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magliulo, G.; Maddaloni, G.; Cosenza, E. Extension of N2 method to plan irregular buildings considering accidental eccentricity. Soil. Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2012, 43, 69–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avramidis, I.; Athanatopoulou, A.; Morfidis, K.; Sextos, A.; Giaralis, A. Eurocode-Compliant Seismic Analysis and Design of R/C Buildings; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Reyes, J.C.; Chopra, A.K. Evaluation of three-dimensional modal pushover analysis for unsymmetric-plan buildings subjected to two components of ground motion. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2011, 40, 1475–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chopra, A.K.; Goel, R.K. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2002, 31, 561–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fajfar, P.; Gašperšič, P. The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis of RC buildings. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1996, 25, 31–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cimellaro, G.P.; Giovine, T.; Lopez-Garcia, D. Bidirectional pushover analysis of irregular structures. J. Struct. Eng. 2014, 140, 04014059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fajfar, P.; Marušić, D.; Peruš, I. Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic analysis of buildings. J. Earthq. Eng. 2005, 9, 831–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cantagallo, C.; Terrenzi, M.; Barbagallo, F.; Di Domenico, M.; Ricci, P.; Camata, G.; Spacone, E.; Marino, E.M.; Verderame, G.M. Effects of the extended N2 method on non-linear static procedures of reinforced concrete frame structures. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2023, 173, 108144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fajfar, P. A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Earthq. Spectra 2000, 16, 573–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, E.L.; Button, M.R. Three-dimensional dynamic analysis for multi-component earthquake spectra. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1982, 10, 471–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López, O.A.; Torres, R. The critical angle of seismic incidence and the maximum structural response. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1997, 26, 881–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anastassiadis, K.; Avramidis, I.; Panetsos, P. Concurrent design forces in structures under three-component orthotropic seismic excitation. Earthq. Spectra 2002, 18, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandez-Davila, I.; Cominetti, S.; Cruz, E.F. Considering the bi-directional effects and the seismic angle variations in building design. In Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 30 January–4 February 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Athanatopoulou, A.M. Critical orientation of three correlated seismic components. Eng. Struct. 2005, 27, 301–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kostinakis, K.G.; Athanatopoulou, A.M.; Avramidis, I.E. Sectional forces for seismic design of R/C frames by linear time history analysis and application to 3D single-story buildings. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2011, 31, 318–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marinilli, A.; Lopez, O.A. Evaluation of critical responses and critical incidence angles obtained with RSA and RHA. In Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 12–17 October 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Alam, Z.; Zhang, C.; Samali, B. Influence of seismic incident angle on response uncertainty and structural performance of tall asymmetric structure. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2020, 29, e1750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalkan, E.; Kwong, N.S. Pros and cons of rotating ground motion records to fault-normal/parallel directions for response history analysis of buildings. J. Struct. Eng. 2014, 140, 04013062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cannizzaro, F.; Pantò, B.; Lepidi, M.; Caddemi, S.; Caliò, I. Multi-directional seismic assessment of historical masonry buildings by means of macro-element modelling: Application to a building damaged during the L’Aquila earthquake (Italy). Buildings 2017, 7, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chácara, C.; Cannizzaro, F.; Pantò, B.; Caliò, I.; Lourenço, P.B. Seismic vulnerability of URM structures based on a Discrete Macro-Element Modeling (DMEM) approach. Eng. Struct. 2019, 201, 109715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chácara, C.; Lourenço, P.B.; Cannizzaro, F.; Pantò, B.; Caliò, I. Assessment of the seismic vulnerability of an unreinforced masonry structure based on discrete-macro dynamic analyses. In Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions: An Interdisciplinary Approach; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 1210–1218. [Google Scholar]
- Kalkbrenner, P.; Pelà, L.; Sandoval, C. Multi directional pushover analysis of irregular masonry buildings without box behavior. Eng. Struct. 2019, 201, 109534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghayoumian, G.; Emami, A.R. A Multi-Direction Pushover Procedure for Seismic Response Assessment of Low-To-Medium-Rise Modern Reinforced Concrete Buildings with Special Dual System Having Torsional Irregularity. Structures 2020, 28, 1077–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cantagallo, C.; Pellegrini, F.A.; Spacone, E.; Camata, G. Multidirectional Lateral Loads and Combination Rules in Pushover Analysis. In Seismic Behaviour and Design of Irregular and Complex Civil Structures IV; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 249–259. [Google Scholar]
- Cantagallo, C.; Terrenzi, M.; Spacone, E.; Camata, G. Effects of Multi-Directional Seismic Input on Non-Linear Static Analysis of Existing Reinforced Concrete Structures. Buildings 2023, 13, 1656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacRae, G.A.; Mattheis, J. Three-dimensional steel building response to near-fault motions. J. Struct. Eng. 2000, 126, 117–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rigato, A.B.; Medina, R.A. Influence of angle of incidence on seismic demands for inelastic single-storey structures subjected to bi-directional ground motions. Eng. Struct. 2007, 29, 2593–2601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lagaros, N.D. The impact of the earthquake incident angle on the seismic loss estimation. Eng. Struct. 2010, 32, 1577–1589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reyes, J.C.; Kalkan, E. Significance of rotating ground motions on behavior of symmetric-and asymmetric-plan structures: Part I. Single-story structures. Earthq. Spectra 2015, 31, 1591–1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalkan, E.; Reyes, J.C. Significance of rotating ground motions on behavior of symmetric-and asymmetric-plan structures: Part II. Multi-story structures. Earthq. Spectra 2015, 31, 1613–1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kostinakis, K.G.; Athanatopoulou, A.M.; Avramidis, I.E. Evaluation of inelastic response of 3D single-story R/C frames under bi-directional excitation using different orientation schemes. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2013, 11, 637–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magliulo, G.; Maddaloni, G.; Petrone, C. Influence of earthquake direction on the seismic response of irregular plan RC frame buildings. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2014, 13, 243–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cantagallo, C.; Camata, G.; Spacone, E. Influence of ground motion selection methods on seismic directionality effects. Earthq. Struct. 2015, 8, 185–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Emami, A.R.; Halabian, A.M. Spatial distribution of ductility demand and damage index in 3D RC frame structures considering directionality effects. Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build. 2015, 24, 941–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kostinakis, K.; Morfidis, K.; Xenidis, H. Damage response of multistorey r/c buildings with different structural systems subjected to seismic motion of arbitrary orientation. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2015, 44, 1919–1937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fontara, I.K.M.; Kostinakis, K.G.; Manoukas, G.E.; Athanatopoulou, A.M. Parameters affecting the seismic response of buildings under bi-directional excitation. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2015, 53, 957–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, M.; Fan, F.; Sun, B.; Zhi, X. Study on the effect of ground motion direction on the response of engineering structure. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2016, 15, 649–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amarloo, N.; Emami, A.R. A 3-dimensional perspective for inter-storey drift, ductility and damage distributions in plan-irregular RC buildings considering seismic orientation effect. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2019, 17, 3447–3474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kostinakis, K.G.; Manoukas, G.E.; Athanatopoulou, A.M. Influence of seismic incident angle on response of symmetric in plan buildings. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2018, 22, 725–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giannopoulos, D.; Vamvatsikos, D. Ground motion records for seismic performance assessment: To rotate or not to rotate? Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2018, 47, 2410–2425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pavel, F.; Nica, G. Influence of rotating strong ground motions on the response of doubly symmetrical RC wall structures in Romania and its implication on code provisions. Int. J. Civ. Eng. 2019, 17, 969–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skoulidou, D.; Romão, X.; Franchin, P. How is collapse risk of RC buildings affected by the angle of seismic incidence? Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2019, 48, 1575–1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skoulidou, D.; Romão, X. The significance of considering multiple angles of seismic incidence for estimating engineering demand parameters. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2020, 18, 139–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bugueño, I.; Carvallo, J.; Vielma, J.C. Influence of Directionality on the Seismic Response of Typical RC Buildings. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Athanatopoulou, A.M.; Avramidis, I.E. Effects of Seismic Directivity on Structural Response; Second FIB Congress: Naples, Italy, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Athanatopoulou, A.M.; Tsourekas, A.; Papamanolis, G. Variation of Response with Incident Angle under Two Horizontal Correlated Seismic Components; Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V: Skiathos, Greece, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Kostinakis, K.G.; Athanatopoulou, A.M.; Avramidis, I.E. Maximum response and critical incident angle in special classes of buildings subjected to two horizontal seismic components. In Proceedings of the 6th GRACM International Congress on Computational Mechanics, Thessaloniki, Greece, 19–21 June 2008; p. 1108. [Google Scholar]
- Gupta, B.; Kunnath, S.K. Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic evaluation of structures. Earthq. Spectra 2000, 16, 367–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalkan, E.; Kunnath, S.K. Adaptive modal combination procedure for nonlinear static analysis of building structures. J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 2006, 132, 1721–1731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chopra, A.K.; Goel, R.K. A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan buildings. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2004, 33, 903–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaats𝚤z, K.; Sucuoğlu, H. Generalized force vectors for multi-mode pushover analysis of torsionally coupled systems. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2014, 43, 2015–2033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sucuoğlu, H.; Günay, M.S. Generalized force vectors for multi-mode pushover analysis. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2011, 40, 55–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Applied Technology Council. Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors; FEMA: Washington, DC, USA, 2009; p. 695.
- Spacone, E.; Filippou, F.C.; Taucer, F. Fiber beam-column model for nonlinear analysis of R/C frames: I. formulation. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1996, 25, 711–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, Y.J.; Ang, A.H.-S. Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced-concrete. J. Struct. Eng. 1985, 111, 722–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kunnath, S.K.; Reinhorn, A.M.; Lobo, R.F. IDARC Version 3: A Program for the Inelastic Damage Analysis of RC Structures, Technical Report NCEER-92-0022, National Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research; State University of New York: Buffalo, NY, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Park, Y.J.; Ang, A.H.-S.; Wen, Y.K. Damage-limiting aseismic design of buildings. Earthq. Spectra 1987, 3, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demir, A.; Kayhan, A.H.; Palanci, M. Response-and probability-based evaluation of spectrally matched ground motion selection strategies for bi-directional dynamic analysis of low-to mid-rise RC buildings. Structures 2023, 58, 105533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demir, A.; Palanci, M.; Kayhan, A.H. Evaluation the effect of amplitude scaling of real ground motions on seismic demands accounting different structural characteristics and soil classes. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2024, 22, 365–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palanci, M.; Demir, A.; Kayhan, A.H. Quantifying the effect of amplitude scaling of real ground motions based on structural responses of vertically irregular and regular RC frames. Structures 2023, 51, 105–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demir, A.; Palanci, M.; Kayhan, A.H. Evaluation of supplementary constraints on dispersion of EDPs using real ground motion record sets. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2020, 45, 8379–8401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Terrenzi, M.; Spacone, E.; Camata, G. Engineering demand parameters for the definition of the collapse limit state for code-conforming reinforced concrete buildings. Eng. Struct. 2022, 266, 114612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cantagallo, C.; Camata, G.; Spacone, E. A probability-based approach for the definition of the expected seismic damage evaluated with non-linear time-history analyses. J. Earthq. Eng. 2019, 23, 261–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ASCE/SEI 41-06; Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Building. American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VI, USA, 2007.
- ASCE/SEI 7-22; Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VI, USA, 2022.
- Bray, J.D.; Rodriguez-Marek, A. Characterization of forward-directivity ground motions in the near-fault region. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2004, 24, 815–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalkan, E.; Kunnath, S.K. Effects of fling step and forward directivity on seismic response of buildings. Earthq. Spectra 2006, 22, 367–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mavroeidis, G.P.; Papageorgiou, A.S. A mathematical representation of near-fault ground motions. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 2003, 93, 1099–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalkan, E.; Kunnath, S.K. Effective cyclic energy as a measure of seismic demand. J. Earthq. Eng. 2007, 11, 725–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalkan, E.; Kunnath, S.K. Relevance of absolute and relative energy content in seismic evaluation of structures. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2008, 11, 17–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NZS 1170.5; Structural Design Actions, Part 5: Earthquake Actions—New Zealand. Standards New Zealand: Wellington, New Zealand, 2004.
- GB50011-2010; Code for Seismic Design of Buildings. China Building Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2010.
- TBEC. Turkish Building Earthquake Code; T.C. Resmi Gazete: Ankara, Turkey, 2018. [Google Scholar]
Reference N. | Author(s) | Analysis Type | Case-Study Structure(s) | Structural Model(s) | EDP(s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
[39] | Wilson and Button (1982) | RSA | Three-storey steel building. Steel columns differently oriented. | Linear | Maximum stress |
[11] | Smeby and Der Kiureghian (1985) | RSA | Two irregular-in-height buildings having a maximum number of storeys equal to one and four, respectively. Elements having pre-defined inertia. | Linear | Displacements |
[10] | Wilson et al. (1995) | RSA | Simplified one-storey building. | Linear | Local Moments |
[40] | Lopez and Torres (1997) | RSA | One-storey reinforced concrete (RC) building. | Linear | Torsional moment, referred to as the centre of mass |
[12] | Menun and Der Kiureghian (1998) | RSA | RC bridge. | Linear | Local Moments |
[41] | Anastassiadis K. et al. (2002) | RSA | Six-storey RC building. | Linear | Stress result (or sectional forces) |
[42] | Fernandez–Davila et al. (2000) | LRHA | Five-storey RC building. | Linear | Axial force in the columns |
[43] | Athanatopoulou A.M. (2005) | LRHA | Five-storey RC building. | Linear | Internal forces N (axial), Mx (bending moment) and Vx (shear force). Maximum displacement at a specific joint |
[44] | Kostinakis et al. (2011) | LRHA | Three single-storey RC buildings. | Linear | Maximum normal stresses (axial forces and bending moments in two orthogonal directions) |
[45] | Marinilli and Lopez (2008) | LRHA | One-storey RC building. | Linear | Axial forces |
[46] | Alam et al. (2020) | LRHA | 18-storey RC building. | Linear | Axial force N, bending moment M, shear force V, Inter-storey Drift Ratios IDRs |
[47] | Kalkan and Kwong (2014) | LRHA | Six-storey RC building. | Linear | Axial force, bending moment, shear force, normalised first-storey drift |
[48] | Cannizzaro et al. (2017) | NSA | Three-storey historic masonry building. | Macro-Element | Three-dimensional capacity dominium (PO curves for different ASIs). Ductility demand |
[49,50] | Chácara et al. (2019) | NSA | 1-storey brick specimen. | Macro-Element | Three-dimensional capacity dominium (PO curves for different ASIs) |
[51] | Kalkbrenner et al. (2019) | NSA | Two-storey historic masonry building. | Shell Elements | Local and Global Displacements |
[52] | Ghayoumian and Emami (2020) | NSA | 4-, 8-, and 12-storey RC buildings. | Fiber-base model for columns and walls and concentrated plastic hinge model for beams | Inter-storey drift ratio (IDR), ductility and damage indices |
[53] | Cantagallo et al. (2022) | NSA | Two one-storey and one five-storey RC buildings. | Force-based fibre section model for beams and columns | Displacement demand and shear demand |
[54] | Cantagallo et al. (2023) | NSA | Two five-storey RC buildings. | Beam-with-Hinges elements with ends modelled with force-based fibre section models | Base Shear, Roof Displacement, and IDRs |
[55] | MacRae and Mattheis (2000) | NRHA | 3-storey steel structure. | Fibre hinge model for column and elastic model for beams | Drifts |
[56] | Rigato and Medina (2007) | NRHA | 2 RC one-storey structures with various degrees of inelasticity. | Plastic hinges with a bilinear hysteretic model for columns. No beams. Rigid diaphragms | Column displacement, ductility ratios, slab rotations and column drift ratios |
[3,57] | Lagaros (2010) | NRHA | Two six-storey and two three-storey RC (regular and irregular) buildings. | Force-based fibre elements. Nonlinear shear (V-γ) law | Maximum Inter-Storey Drift Ratio (MIDR) |
[58] | Reyes and Kalkan (2015) | NRHA | 30 single-storey symmetric and asymmetric single-storey steel buildings. | Buckling Restrained Braces (BRBs) with a simplified trilinear model | Displacements, floor accelerations, member forces and plastic deformations |
[59] | Kalkan and Reyes (2015) | NRHA | Nine-storey steel building. | Trilinear plastic hinges at the ends of beams and columns. Four rigid links hinged at the corners with a rotational spring | Storey drifts, floor total accelerations, member chord rotations, and beam and column moments |
[60] | Kostinakis, K. G. et al. (2013) | NRHA | 3D single-storey RC buildings. | Plastic hinges both for columns (with PMM interaction) and beams | Park and Ang damage index for elements |
[61] | Magliulo G. et al. (2014) | NRHA | One four-storey and two five-storey RC buildings | Beams and columns with lumped plasticity model | Top displacements, ratio between demand rotation and capacity rotation |
[62] | Cantagallo et al. (2015) | NRHA | Two one-storey, one two-storey, and one three-storey symmetric and asymmetric RC structures. | Force-based fibre elements | MIDR |
[63] | Emami and Halabian (2015) | NRHA | 4-, 8-, and 12-storey RC moment-frame archetypic structures. | Fibre model for columns and lumped plasticity model for beams | Roof drift index, normalised inter-storey, storey ductility demands, storey damage indices |
[64] | Kostinakis et al. (2015) | NRHA | Four double-symmetric and four asymmetric in-plan five-storey RC buildings, with and without structural walls. | Plastic hinges, which are located at the column (PMM interaction diagram) and beam | Park and Ang Damage Index |
[65] | Fontara et al. (2015) | NRHA | Single-storey RC asymmetric building. | Not indicated | Park and Ang Damage Index |
[66] | Sun et al. (2016) | NRHA | 3-storey RC school building with upper space truss. | Fibre elements for beams and columns, link for upper space truss, shells for slabs | Stresses in the elements |
[67] | Amarloo and Emami (2019) | NRHA | 4-, 8-, and 12-storey RC moment-frame structures with typical L-shaped plans. | Lumped plastic hinges | Drift, ductility and damage indices |
[68] | Kostinakis et al. (2018) | NRHA | Two 2-storey RC buildings with equal and unequal stiffness in the two orthogonal directions. | Plastic hinges, which are located at the column (P-M m interaction diagram) and beam | Park and Ang Damage Index (DI) modified by Kunnath et al. |
[69] | Giannopoulos and Vamvatsikos (2018) | NRHA | SDOF system and 6-storey steel moment-resisting frame building with an L-shaped plan. | Elastic-perfectly plastic model with no cyclic degradation. | MIDR and Maximum Peak Floor Acceleration (MPFA) |
[70] | Pavel and Nica (2019) | NRHA | 6-, 8-, and 10-storey doubly symmetrical RC wall structures. | Nonlinear flexural hinges in beams with trilinear hysteretic models, multi-spring (MS) model with nonlinear axial springs at both ends and bidirectional nonlinear shear springs in the middle for columns and walls | IDR, maximum displacement at the top of the building, and maximum shear force at the base of the structural walls. |
[71] | Skoulidou et al. (2019) | NRHA | Six RC buildings (3-, 4-, and 5-storey) with infilled frame systems with and without in-plan irregularities | Lumped plastic hinges for beam elements, truss for infills | Collapse Fragility curves |
[72] | Skoulidou et al. (2020) | NRHA | Six RC buildings (3-, 4-, and 5-storey) with infilled frame systems with and without in-plan irregularities | Lumped plastic hinges, truss for infills | MIDR, MPFA, and maximum roof drift |
[73] | Bugueño et al. (2022) | NRHA | Four 5-storey RC buildings | Nonlinear fibre elements | Inter-storey drift and the roof displacement |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cantagallo, C.; Terrenzi, M.; Camata, G.; Spacone, E. Historical Evolution of the Impact of Seismic Incident Angles on the Safety Assessment of Various Building Construction Typologies. Buildings 2024, 14, 1490. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061490
Cantagallo C, Terrenzi M, Camata G, Spacone E. Historical Evolution of the Impact of Seismic Incident Angles on the Safety Assessment of Various Building Construction Typologies. Buildings. 2024; 14(6):1490. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061490
Chicago/Turabian StyleCantagallo, Cristina, Marco Terrenzi, Guido Camata, and Enrico Spacone. 2024. "Historical Evolution of the Impact of Seismic Incident Angles on the Safety Assessment of Various Building Construction Typologies" Buildings 14, no. 6: 1490. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061490