Comparative Study on Seismic Fragility Assessment of Self-Centering Energy-Absorbing Dual Rocking Core versus Buckling Restrained Braced Systems under Mainshock–Aftershock Sequences
AbstractA strong mainshock may cause several aftershocks within a short interval. These aftershocks can make buildings damaged during the mainshock more vulnerable to collapse. Hence, it is critical to study the seismic responses of a structure during aftershock events following a major shock. The f...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of structural engineering (New York, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2021-09, Vol.147 (9) |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | |
container_title | Journal of structural engineering (New York, N.Y.) |
container_volume | 147 |
creator | Hu, Shuling Wang, Wei Shahria Alam, M |
description | AbstractA strong mainshock may cause several aftershocks within a short interval. These aftershocks can make buildings damaged during the mainshock more vulnerable to collapse. Hence, it is critical to study the seismic responses of a structure during aftershock events following a major shock. The focus of this work was to investigate the seismic fragility of an emerging high-performance seismic-resistant system—the self-centering energy-absorbing dual rocking core (SEDRC) system—considering mainshock–aftershock sequences, and to compare SEDRC with traditional systems. First, three- and six-story SEDRC systems were designed following the direct displacement-based design method to show comparable maximum interstory drifts compared with those of the three- and six-story benchmark buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBFs), respectively, under the design-basis earthquake excitations. Second, 30 as-recorded mainshock–aftershock sequences were selected. The dynamic analyses and incremental dynamic analyses (IDAs) were conducted to study the seismic responses of the four buildings with the mainshock inputs alone and the mainshock–aftershock sequence inputs. The analysis results show that the designed SEDRC systems and BRBFs can obtain comparable performance in limiting the maximum interstory drifts (MID) responses, whereas the SEDRC systems are more efficient in limiting the maximum residual interstory drifts (MRD). Moreover, the SEDRC systems perform much better than BRBFs in resisting structural collapse. As expected, the aftershocks would increase the MID, but may increase or decrease the MRD of the SEDRC systems and BRBFs. Finally, the seismic fragilities of the designed systems were further investigated on the basis of the results from the IDAs in a probabilistic framework using a joint probability density function with the consideration of both MID and MRD. The advantages of the SEDRC systems in achieving excellent seismic collapse-resistant and self-centering capacity were explored through probabilistic analyses. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003082 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2544753276</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2544753276</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a337t-f0ba2cc144ef58905ea989dd54b04dca5beb4cf289779d321f534b873f17687f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1Uctu1DAUjRBIDIV_sGADiwx2bI8TdmmYQqWiSs0gsbMc53pIm8fUN6mUHf_Ax_A_fAlOp9AVq6tz7nksThS9ZnTN6Ia9f5uXxfZduVuzTPBYCvZtTSnlNE2eRKt_3NNoRRXncSaEfB69QLwOIiVZuop-FUN3MN6MzR2QcpzqmQw9KaHBrrHkzJt90zbjTHJEQOygH8ngwr91cREA-Kbfk20Pfj_HeYWDrxbi42RacjXYmwUUgwdyBx4nJKeTvWkX8gpw9KbpoSan3thwyhlH6JBMfQ2efAk__B4Sfv_4mbvQcw9C8e0EvQV8GT1zpkV49XBPoq9n213xOb64_HRe5Bex4VyNsaOVSaxlQoCTaUYlmCzN6lqKioraGllBJaxL0kyprOYJc5KLKlXcMbVJleMn0Ztj7sEPoRpHfT1Mvg-VOpFCKMkTtQmqD0eV9QOiB6cPvumMnzWjehlK62UoXe70MopeRtEPQwXz5mg2aOEx_q_z_8Y_sNidkQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2544753276</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparative Study on Seismic Fragility Assessment of Self-Centering Energy-Absorbing Dual Rocking Core versus Buckling Restrained Braced Systems under Mainshock–Aftershock Sequences</title><source>American Society of Civil Engineers:NESLI2:Journals:2014</source><creator>Hu, Shuling ; Wang, Wei ; Shahria Alam, M</creator><creatorcontrib>Hu, Shuling ; Wang, Wei ; Shahria Alam, M</creatorcontrib><description>AbstractA strong mainshock may cause several aftershocks within a short interval. These aftershocks can make buildings damaged during the mainshock more vulnerable to collapse. Hence, it is critical to study the seismic responses of a structure during aftershock events following a major shock. The focus of this work was to investigate the seismic fragility of an emerging high-performance seismic-resistant system—the self-centering energy-absorbing dual rocking core (SEDRC) system—considering mainshock–aftershock sequences, and to compare SEDRC with traditional systems. First, three- and six-story SEDRC systems were designed following the direct displacement-based design method to show comparable maximum interstory drifts compared with those of the three- and six-story benchmark buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBFs), respectively, under the design-basis earthquake excitations. Second, 30 as-recorded mainshock–aftershock sequences were selected. The dynamic analyses and incremental dynamic analyses (IDAs) were conducted to study the seismic responses of the four buildings with the mainshock inputs alone and the mainshock–aftershock sequence inputs. The analysis results show that the designed SEDRC systems and BRBFs can obtain comparable performance in limiting the maximum interstory drifts (MID) responses, whereas the SEDRC systems are more efficient in limiting the maximum residual interstory drifts (MRD). Moreover, the SEDRC systems perform much better than BRBFs in resisting structural collapse. As expected, the aftershocks would increase the MID, but may increase or decrease the MRD of the SEDRC systems and BRBFs. Finally, the seismic fragilities of the designed systems were further investigated on the basis of the results from the IDAs in a probabilistic framework using a joint probability density function with the consideration of both MID and MRD. The advantages of the SEDRC systems in achieving excellent seismic collapse-resistant and self-centering capacity were explored through probabilistic analyses.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0733-9445</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1943-541X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003082</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: American Society of Civil Engineers</publisher><subject>Aftershocks ; Buckling ; Buildings ; Collapse ; Comparative studies ; Constraining ; Design ; Drift ; Earthquake damage ; Earthquake resistance ; Energy absorption ; Fragility ; Probability density functions ; Seismic response ; Sequences ; Statistical analysis ; Structural engineering ; Technical Papers</subject><ispartof>Journal of structural engineering (New York, N.Y.), 2021-09, Vol.147 (9)</ispartof><rights>2021 American Society of Civil Engineers</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a337t-f0ba2cc144ef58905ea989dd54b04dca5beb4cf289779d321f534b873f17687f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a337t-f0ba2cc144ef58905ea989dd54b04dca5beb4cf289779d321f534b873f17687f3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1241-465X ; 0000-0003-3031-4337 ; 0000-0002-9092-1473</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttp://ascelibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003082$$EPDF$$P50$$Gasce$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttp://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003082$$EHTML$$P50$$Gasce$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924,75964,75972</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hu, Shuling</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shahria Alam, M</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative Study on Seismic Fragility Assessment of Self-Centering Energy-Absorbing Dual Rocking Core versus Buckling Restrained Braced Systems under Mainshock–Aftershock Sequences</title><title>Journal of structural engineering (New York, N.Y.)</title><description>AbstractA strong mainshock may cause several aftershocks within a short interval. These aftershocks can make buildings damaged during the mainshock more vulnerable to collapse. Hence, it is critical to study the seismic responses of a structure during aftershock events following a major shock. The focus of this work was to investigate the seismic fragility of an emerging high-performance seismic-resistant system—the self-centering energy-absorbing dual rocking core (SEDRC) system—considering mainshock–aftershock sequences, and to compare SEDRC with traditional systems. First, three- and six-story SEDRC systems were designed following the direct displacement-based design method to show comparable maximum interstory drifts compared with those of the three- and six-story benchmark buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBFs), respectively, under the design-basis earthquake excitations. Second, 30 as-recorded mainshock–aftershock sequences were selected. The dynamic analyses and incremental dynamic analyses (IDAs) were conducted to study the seismic responses of the four buildings with the mainshock inputs alone and the mainshock–aftershock sequence inputs. The analysis results show that the designed SEDRC systems and BRBFs can obtain comparable performance in limiting the maximum interstory drifts (MID) responses, whereas the SEDRC systems are more efficient in limiting the maximum residual interstory drifts (MRD). Moreover, the SEDRC systems perform much better than BRBFs in resisting structural collapse. As expected, the aftershocks would increase the MID, but may increase or decrease the MRD of the SEDRC systems and BRBFs. Finally, the seismic fragilities of the designed systems were further investigated on the basis of the results from the IDAs in a probabilistic framework using a joint probability density function with the consideration of both MID and MRD. The advantages of the SEDRC systems in achieving excellent seismic collapse-resistant and self-centering capacity were explored through probabilistic analyses.</description><subject>Aftershocks</subject><subject>Buckling</subject><subject>Buildings</subject><subject>Collapse</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Constraining</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>Drift</subject><subject>Earthquake damage</subject><subject>Earthquake resistance</subject><subject>Energy absorption</subject><subject>Fragility</subject><subject>Probability density functions</subject><subject>Seismic response</subject><subject>Sequences</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Structural engineering</subject><subject>Technical Papers</subject><issn>0733-9445</issn><issn>1943-541X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1Uctu1DAUjRBIDIV_sGADiwx2bI8TdmmYQqWiSs0gsbMc53pIm8fUN6mUHf_Ax_A_fAlOp9AVq6tz7nksThS9ZnTN6Ia9f5uXxfZduVuzTPBYCvZtTSnlNE2eRKt_3NNoRRXncSaEfB69QLwOIiVZuop-FUN3MN6MzR2QcpzqmQw9KaHBrrHkzJt90zbjTHJEQOygH8ngwr91cREA-Kbfk20Pfj_HeYWDrxbi42RacjXYmwUUgwdyBx4nJKeTvWkX8gpw9KbpoSan3thwyhlH6JBMfQ2efAk__B4Sfv_4mbvQcw9C8e0EvQV8GT1zpkV49XBPoq9n213xOb64_HRe5Bex4VyNsaOVSaxlQoCTaUYlmCzN6lqKioraGllBJaxL0kyprOYJc5KLKlXcMbVJleMn0Ztj7sEPoRpHfT1Mvg-VOpFCKMkTtQmqD0eV9QOiB6cPvumMnzWjehlK62UoXe70MopeRtEPQwXz5mg2aOEx_q_z_8Y_sNidkQ</recordid><startdate>20210901</startdate><enddate>20210901</enddate><creator>Hu, Shuling</creator><creator>Wang, Wei</creator><creator>Shahria Alam, M</creator><general>American Society of Civil Engineers</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1241-465X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3031-4337</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9092-1473</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210901</creationdate><title>Comparative Study on Seismic Fragility Assessment of Self-Centering Energy-Absorbing Dual Rocking Core versus Buckling Restrained Braced Systems under Mainshock–Aftershock Sequences</title><author>Hu, Shuling ; Wang, Wei ; Shahria Alam, M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a337t-f0ba2cc144ef58905ea989dd54b04dca5beb4cf289779d321f534b873f17687f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Aftershocks</topic><topic>Buckling</topic><topic>Buildings</topic><topic>Collapse</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Constraining</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>Drift</topic><topic>Earthquake damage</topic><topic>Earthquake resistance</topic><topic>Energy absorption</topic><topic>Fragility</topic><topic>Probability density functions</topic><topic>Seismic response</topic><topic>Sequences</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Structural engineering</topic><topic>Technical Papers</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hu, Shuling</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shahria Alam, M</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of structural engineering (New York, N.Y.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hu, Shuling</au><au>Wang, Wei</au><au>Shahria Alam, M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative Study on Seismic Fragility Assessment of Self-Centering Energy-Absorbing Dual Rocking Core versus Buckling Restrained Braced Systems under Mainshock–Aftershock Sequences</atitle><jtitle>Journal of structural engineering (New York, N.Y.)</jtitle><date>2021-09-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>147</volume><issue>9</issue><issn>0733-9445</issn><eissn>1943-541X</eissn><abstract>AbstractA strong mainshock may cause several aftershocks within a short interval. These aftershocks can make buildings damaged during the mainshock more vulnerable to collapse. Hence, it is critical to study the seismic responses of a structure during aftershock events following a major shock. The focus of this work was to investigate the seismic fragility of an emerging high-performance seismic-resistant system—the self-centering energy-absorbing dual rocking core (SEDRC) system—considering mainshock–aftershock sequences, and to compare SEDRC with traditional systems. First, three- and six-story SEDRC systems were designed following the direct displacement-based design method to show comparable maximum interstory drifts compared with those of the three- and six-story benchmark buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBFs), respectively, under the design-basis earthquake excitations. Second, 30 as-recorded mainshock–aftershock sequences were selected. The dynamic analyses and incremental dynamic analyses (IDAs) were conducted to study the seismic responses of the four buildings with the mainshock inputs alone and the mainshock–aftershock sequence inputs. The analysis results show that the designed SEDRC systems and BRBFs can obtain comparable performance in limiting the maximum interstory drifts (MID) responses, whereas the SEDRC systems are more efficient in limiting the maximum residual interstory drifts (MRD). Moreover, the SEDRC systems perform much better than BRBFs in resisting structural collapse. As expected, the aftershocks would increase the MID, but may increase or decrease the MRD of the SEDRC systems and BRBFs. Finally, the seismic fragilities of the designed systems were further investigated on the basis of the results from the IDAs in a probabilistic framework using a joint probability density function with the consideration of both MID and MRD. The advantages of the SEDRC systems in achieving excellent seismic collapse-resistant and self-centering capacity were explored through probabilistic analyses.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>American Society of Civil Engineers</pub><doi>10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003082</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1241-465X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3031-4337</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9092-1473</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0733-9445 |
ispartof | Journal of structural engineering (New York, N.Y.), 2021-09, Vol.147 (9) |
issn | 0733-9445 1943-541X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2544753276 |
source | American Society of Civil Engineers:NESLI2:Journals:2014 |
subjects | Aftershocks Buckling Buildings Collapse Comparative studies Constraining Design Drift Earthquake damage Earthquake resistance Energy absorption Fragility Probability density functions Seismic response Sequences Statistical analysis Structural engineering Technical Papers |
title | Comparative Study on Seismic Fragility Assessment of Self-Centering Energy-Absorbing Dual Rocking Core versus Buckling Restrained Braced Systems under Mainshock–Aftershock Sequences |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T09%3A51%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative%20Study%20on%20Seismic%20Fragility%20Assessment%20of%20Self-Centering%20Energy-Absorbing%20Dual%20Rocking%20Core%20versus%20Buckling%20Restrained%20Braced%20Systems%20under%20Mainshock%E2%80%93Aftershock%20Sequences&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20structural%20engineering%20(New%20York,%20N.Y.)&rft.au=Hu,%20Shuling&rft.date=2021-09-01&rft.volume=147&rft.issue=9&rft.issn=0733-9445&rft.eissn=1943-541X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003082&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2544753276%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2544753276&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |