floor response spectra
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

105
(FIVE YEARS 29)

H-INDEX

12
(FIVE YEARS 3)

Structures ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
pp. 305-317
Author(s):  
Yicheng Liu ◽  
Xiao Wang ◽  
Xiaoyan Wang ◽  
Xiaochun Zhang ◽  
Wei Gong ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
S. V. Koval ◽  
A. V. Kuzminov ◽  
P. A. Rodin ◽  
N. M. Sidorov

Various approaches are used for simulating seismic loading and collaboration of a structure and a bearing stratum when carrying out dynamic seismic analysis in specialized software. In the present work, the kinematic parameters of various structures and bearing stratum were calculated using SCAD and STAR_T software. Seismic performance of a reference tower type supporting frame was calculated for 7 grade earthquake. As a result, the floor accelerograms were calculated, and the floor response spectra were built. The calculation results obtained by various methods and structure models were analyzed and compared.


Structures ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 34 ◽  
pp. 2476-2498
Author(s):  
André Furtado ◽  
Hugo Rodrigues ◽  
António Arêde

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Beatrice Chichino ◽  
Simone Peloso ◽  
Davide Bolognini ◽  
Claudio Moroni ◽  
Daniele Perrone ◽  
...  

Seismic risk reduction of a building system, meant as primary building structure and nonstructural elements (NSEs) as a whole, must rely upon an adequate design of each of these two items. As far as NSEs are concerned, adequate seismic design means understanding of some basic principles and concepts that involve different actors, such as designers, manufacturers, installers, and directors of works. The current Italian Building Code, referred to as NTC18 hereinafter, defines each set of tasks and responsibilities in a sufficiently detailed manner, rendering now evident that achieving the desired performance level stems from a jointed contribution of all actors involved. Bearing in mind that seismic design is nothing else than proportioning properly seismic demand, in terms of acceleration and/or displacement, and the corresponding capacity, this paper gives a synthetic and informative overview on how to evaluate these two parameters. To shed some light on this, the concept of acceleration floor response spectrum (AFRS) is firstly brought in, along with basics of building structure-NSEs interaction, and is then deepened by means of calculation methods. Both the most rigorous method based on nonlinear dynamic simulations and the simplified analytical formulations provided by the NTC18 are briefly discussed and reviewed, trying to make them clearer even to readers with no structural/earthquake engineering background because, as a matter of fact, NSEs are often selected by architects and/or mechanical or electrical engineers. Lastly, a simple case study, representative of a European code-compliant five-storey masonry-infilled reinforced concrete frame building, is presented to examine differences between numerical and analytical AFRS and to quantify accuracy of different NTC18 procedures.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cengiz Ipek ◽  
Eric D. Wolff ◽  
Michael C. Constantinou

Abstract Seismic isolation is generally considered an effective earthquake protection strategy. As application of seismic isolation increases, decisions on the use of one particular isolator versus another isolator increasingly depend on computed responses with complex analytical models. Accordingly, validation of analytical models to predict primary (structural) and secondary system (non-structural component) response in seismically isolated buildings becomes very important. This paper presents comparisons of experimental and analytical results on the primary and secondary system response of a building model in order to provide information on the accuracy of the predicted response. The tested model was configured as a 6-story building at quarter length scale in a moment-frame configuration, and with the following seismic isolation systems: a) Low damping elastomeric bearings with and without linear or nonlinear viscous dampers, b) Single Friction Pendulum (FP) bearings with and without linear or nonlinear viscous dampers, and c) Lead-rubber bearings. Response quantities compared include story drifts and isolator shear forces and displacements for the primary system, and peak floor total velocities and floor response spectra that relate to secondary system response. This paper presents samples results out of a total of 288 comparisons of experimental and analytical results presented in an MCEER report. It is shown that the primary and secondary system response is computed with sufficient accuracy by the analytical models but some response quantities may be underestimated or overestimated by significant amounts.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianrocco Mucedero ◽  
Daniele Perrone ◽  
Emanuele Brunesi ◽  
Ricardo Monteiro

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document