Fundamentals of earthquake engineering amr s elnashai luigi di sarno

FUNDAMENTALS OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING Amr S Elnashai Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois, USA and Luigi Di Sarno Department of Structural Analysis and Design, University of Sannio, Benvenuto, Italy A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Publication FUNDAMENTALS OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING FUNDAMENTALS OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING Amr S Elnashai Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois, USA and Luigi Di Sarno Department of Structural Analysis and Design, University of Sannio, Benvenuto, Italy A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Publication This edition first published 2008 © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Registered office John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, United Kingdom For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Elnashai, Amr S Fundamentals of earthquake engineering / Amr S Elnashai and Luigi Di Sarno p cm Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN 978-0-470-02483-6 (Hbk) Earthquake engineering I Di Sarno, Luigi TA654.6.E485 2008 624.1’762–dc22 II Title 2008033265 ISBN: 978-0-470-02483-6 (Hbk) A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Set in on 11pt Times by SNP Best-set Typesetter Ltd., Hong Kong Printed in England by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham, Wilts Contents About the Authors ix Foreword xi Preface and Acknowledgements xiii Introduction xv List of Abbreviations xix List of Symbols xxi Earthquake Characteristics 1.1 Causes of Earthquakes 1.1.1 Plate Tectonics Theory 1.1.2 Faulting 1.1.3 Seismic Waves 1.2 Measuring Earthquakes 1.2.1 Intensity 1.2.2 Magnitude 1.2.3 Intensity–Magnitude Relationships 1.3 Source-to-Site Effects 1.3.1 Directional Effects 1.3.2 Site Effects 1.3.3 Dispersion and Incoherence 1.4 Effects of Earthquakes 1.4.1 Damage to Buildings and Lifelines 1.4.2 Effects on the Ground 1.4.3 Human and Financial Losses References 1 14 15 18 24 25 26 27 30 32 34 36 40 44 Response of Structures 2.1 General 2.2 Conceptual Framework 2.2.1 Definitions 2.2.2 Strength-versus Ductility-Based Response 47 47 47 47 48 vi Contents 2.2.3 Member-versus System-Level Consideration 2.2.4 Nature of Seismic Effects 2.2.5 Fundamental Response Quantities 2.2.6 Social-Economic Limit States 2.3 Structural Response Characteristics 2.3.1 Stiffness 2.3.2 Strength 2.3.3 Ductility 2.3.4 Overstrength 2.3.5 Damping 2.3.6 Relationship between Strength, Overstrength and Ductility: Force Reduction Factor ‘Supply’ References 49 51 53 54 56 56 73 85 101 106 3.1 3.2 3.3 Earthquake Input Motion General Earthquake Occurrence and Return Period Ground-Motion Models (Attenuation Relationships) 3.3.1 Features of Strong-Motion Data for Attenuation Relationships 3.3.2 Attenuation Relationship for Europe 3.3.3 Attenuation Relationship for Japan 3.3.4 Attenuation Relationships for North America 3.3.5 Worldwide Attenuation Relationships Earthquake Spectra 3.4.1 Factors Influencing Response Spectra 3.4.2 Elastic and Inelastic Spectra 3.4.3 Simplified Spectra 3.4.4 Force Reduction Factors (Demand) 3.4.5 Design Spectra 3.4.6 Vertical Component of Ground Motion 3.4.7 Vertical Motion Spectra Earthquake Records 3.5.1 Natural Records 3.5.2 Artificial Records 3.5.3 Records Based on Mathematical Formulations 3.5.4 Scaling of Earthquake Records Duration and Number of Cycles of Earthquake Ground Motions Use of Earthquake Databases Software for Deriving Spectra and Generation of Ground-Motion Records 3.8.1 Derivation of Earthquake Spectra 3.8.2 Generation of Ground-Motion Records References 119 119 119 122 124 125 126 127 128 129 129 130 137 144 150 152 153 155 155 159 160 161 168 173 174 175 178 179 Response Evaluation General Conceptual Framework Ground Motion and Load Modelling Seismic Load Combinations 185 185 185 186 189 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 111 115 Contents vii 4.5 Structural Modelling 4.5.1 Materials 4.5.2 Sections 4.5.3 Components and Systems for Structural Modelling 4.5.4 Masses 4.6 Methods of Analysis 4.6.1 Dynamic Analysis 4.6.2 Static Analysis 4.6.3 Simplified Code Method 4.7 Performance Levels and Objectives 4.8 Output for Assessment 4.8.1 Actions 4.8.2 Deformations 4.9 Concluding Remarks References 191 194 200 203 217 220 222 232 239 244 249 250 251 257 258 Appendix A – Structural Configurations and Systems for Effective Earthquake Resistance 263 Appendix B – Damage to Structures 291 Index 337 Appendix B 325 Transverse vibration 1/3 Main steel reinforcement interrupted Flexural cracks initiated a earthquake-induced vibration Shear cracks reached the other side because of the tilting of columns in mountain side Propagation of flexural cracks to reduce effective concrete section for shear force b flexural crack initiation Extensive diagonal cracks initiated and propagated c flexural and shear cracks When columns overturned, longitudinal reinforcement moved outwards Tilting increased due to P-Δ effects d crack spreading and pier tilting Failure of tie reinforcement, rupture of longitudinal reinforcement and rupture of gas-pressure weld were developed e global collapse Figure B.48 Flexural failure above column base of columns of the Hanshin expressway, due to premature termination of longitudinal reinforcement and inadequate confinement in the 1995 Kobe (Japan) earthquake: observed failure (top) and mechanism of failure (bottom) (courtesy of Dr Kazuhiko Kawashima) Failure may also occur without yielding of vertical reinforcement, due to an inadequate lap-splice length or failure in welded bars as displayed in Figure B.49 (ii) Column Shear Failure Elastically designed structures may suffer failure by shear, since the shear strength corresponding to the maximum flexural strength would not have been considered Shear failure mechanisms are not usually suitable for ductile seismic response, because of the low levels of deformation corresponding to failure Short columns are particularly susceptible to such effects A high percentage of bridges lane collapsed during recent earthquakes because of shear failure Two cases are shown in Figure B.50 326 Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering Figure B.49 Failures at the base of reinforced concrete bridge piers: bond failure of lap slices (left) and weld failure of longitudinal reinforcement (right) in the 1995 Kobe (Japan) earthquake (courtesy of Dr Kazuhiko Kawashima) Figure B.50 Shear failure within (left) and outside (right) the plastic hinge region in the San Fernando Mission Blvd-Gothic Avenue Bridge and I-10 Freeway at Venice Blvd, respectively, during the 1994 Northridge (California) earthquake In particular, Figure B.50 shows a case in which flexural and shear failure mechanisms were combined The reduced contribution of concrete to the shear resistance in the plastic hinge area, after the concrete was damaged, led to shear failure (iii) Column Buckling and Fractures A number of steel and composite columns suffered extensive local buckling (also known as ‘elephant foot mode’) during the 1995 Kobe earthquake (Figure B.51) This failure mode occurred at the base of piers with hollow sections infilled with concrete; the transition zone between infilled and unfilled concrete was critical for buckling In several cases, this coincided with the termination of concrete infilling, used to protect the piers from vehicle impact Appendix B 327 Figure B.51 Elephant foot mode in steel piers of the Collector from Port Island to Kobe during the 1995 Kobe (Japan) earthquake: buckling at the pier base (left) and at intermediate height (right) (courtesy of Dr Matej Fishinger) In many steel bridges, unzipping of corner welds in filled/unfilled box piers has caused collapse; the weight of the heavy deck squashes the piers This type of failure mechanism was observed in the Tateishi Viaduct during the 1995 Kobe earthquake as shown in Figure B.52 Several cases of symmetric buckling of reinforcement and compressive failure of piers may be, at least in part, attributable to high vertical earthquake forces both in Kobe and Northridge (Broderick et al., 1994; Elnashai et al., 1995) Three out of four RC piers supporting the I10 (Santa Monica freeway) collector-distributor 36 suffered varying degrees of shear failure due to the short shear span that resulted from on-site modification of the original design (Figure B.53) B.3.4 Joint Failure Beam-column connections (or pier-cross beam connections) are subjected to high levels of shear The heavy damage inflicted on several RC bridges in the San Francisco area during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake dramatically brought this problem to the fore Current design philosophy is to attempt to over-design connections in order to force inelastic action in beams and columns Without adequate transverse reinforcement, concrete diagonal cracks are opened in the joint regions, where shear stresses produce excessive tension cracks, as shown in Figure B.54 A further factor that may precipitate joint failure is insufficient anchorage of reinforcement in the end regions Sliding shear at intentional flexural hinges has also been observed, and is possibly the main reason for the collapse of the Cypress Viaduct (Figure B.55) 328 Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering a Before the earthquake c Progress of buckling at bottom and buckling of lateral beam b Buckling of web and flange plates at bottom d Complete failure of column and settlement of lateral beam Figure B.52 Failure mechanism of the Tateishi Viaduct during the 1995 Kobe (Japan) earthquake: observed damage (top) and failure mechanism (bottom) (courtesy of Dr Kazuhiko Kawashima) Figure B.53 Different shear damage patterns for RC piers at the under-crossing of the Santa Monica Interstate 10 during the 1994 Northridge (California) earthquake: Pier # with inadequate detailing for plastic hinge (left), Pier # with symmetric buckling (middle) and Pier # with typical shear failure (right) Appendix B 329 GIRDER STAGE GIRDER PIER GIRDER STAGE STAGE PIER GIRDER PIER STAGE PIER Figure B.54 Joint shear failure of the Cypress Street Viaduct (Interstate 880) during the 1989 Loma Prieta (California) earthquake observed failure (left) and sketches of the damage mechanism (right) (courtesy of National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering, University of California, Berkeley) Figure B.55 Sliding shear at top columns of the Cypress Viaduct in the 1989 Loma Prieta (California) earthquake (courtesy of National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering, University of California, Berkeley) Reproduced from: Left: Image: Karl V Steinbrugge Collection: S6130 Right: Karl V Steinbrugge Collection: S6128 URL: http://nisee.berkeley.edu/elibrary/ 330 Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering Figure B.56 Failures of piles supporting RC bridges during the 1989 Loma Prieta (California) (left) and 1995 Kobe (Japan) (right) earthquakes (courtesy of National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering, University of California, Berkeley) Reproduced from: Left: Image: Karl V Steinbrugge Collection: S6130 Right: Matej Fischinger – CD ROM URL: http://nisee.berkeley.edu/elibrary/ B.3.5 Footing Failure Compared to other effects, there are few cases of failures caused by footing damage for both RC and steel bridges Since it is more likely that piers will suffer damage due to inadequate design, actions transmitted to the foundations are limited by the capacity of piers The rocking of the footing may also have contributed to safeguarding of the foundation system, limiting the level of seismic forces However, analysis of typical footing detailing points towards several inadequacies, such as: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) Footing flexural resistance, mainly due to omission of top reinforcement; Footing shear resistance; Joint shear resistance; Inadequate anchorage of the longitudinal reinforcement of columns; Inadequate connection between tension piles and footings Figure B.56 shows two examples of failure in piles supporting RC bridges; they were observed in the 1989 Loma Prieta and the 1995 Kobe earthquakes, respectively In the 1995 Kobe earthquake, a number of investigated cases showed damage to footings, which cracked mainly in shear Several piles were also damaged It is relatively difficult to ascertain the cause of failure of sub-grade structures, but it is likely that such failures are due to unconservative estimates of the actions transmitted from the piers to the foundations Also, the point of contra-flexure of the pile-footing-pier system is often misplaced; hence the critical sections are not treated as such B.3.6 Geotechnical Effects Assessment of geotechnical effects is of great importance for the seismic performance of bridges, of both RC and steel, as discussed in the previous sections For example, soil lateral spreading or liquefaction, presented in Section 1.4.2, imposes large deformation demands on bridge components, such as piles, abutment walls and simply supported deck spans Some bridges founded on soft ground in the Kobe area suffered damage to piles due to negative skin friction resulting from soil failure Approach Appendix B 331 0.1m 0.1m 1.3m 0.2m 0.2m 1.1m LATERAL VIEW 1A 2P 0.8m 3P 4A 3910.0m 960.0m 1990.0m 960.0m 1.3m 1.4m 960.0m 1990.8m 960.3m PLAN VIEW Figure B.57 Damage to the Akashi Kaikyo bridge during the 1995 Kobe (Japan) earthquake: aerial view (left) and permanent offset of foundations (right) structures and abutments have suffered substantial movement due to soil slumping The world’s longest suspension bridge (Akashi Kaikyo) was under construction when the 1995 Kobe earthquake occurred Two abutments and two main towers (2P and 3P, in Figure B.57, respectively) were completed The fault crossed the bridge between foundations for 2P and 3P This caused permanent lateral movements and rotations of the anchorage and tower foundations as depicted pictorially in Figure B.57 (Saeki et al., 1997; Yasuda et al., 2000) Liquefaction was widespread in the 1964 Niigata earthquake, especially in the alluvial plains of the Shinano and Agano rivers This caused significant damage due to large movements of pier and abutment foundations (see for example, Figure B.40) Railway and highway bridges were affected by large ground displacement in the 1990 Costa Rica earthquake, where caisson and pier movements of 2.0 m and 0.8 m, respectively, were observed Examples of span failures due to liquefaction included the collapse of an exterior and an interior span of the Rio Viscaya and Rio Bananito Bridge during the 1990 Costa Rica earthquake, respectively The fact that the Rio Bananito Bridge span seat was skewed further amplified the displacement Footings and piles are sometimes under-designed for earthquake loading, since the overstrength of the piers they support would not have been taken into account when evaluating actions on the foundations In the 1923 Kanto (Japan) earthquake, tilting of mass concrete foundations was observed, thus indicating inadequate consideration of overturning It is likely that such failures are due to unconservative estimates of the actions transmitted from the piers to the foundations A detailed description of damage patterns in bridges along with the corresponding structural deficiencies of foundations, sub- and superstructures may be found in specialist textbooks (e.g Priestley et al., 1996) and reconnaissance reports of recent worldwide earthquakes (see Astaneh-Asl et al., 1989; EERI, 1994; Elnashai et al., 1995, among many others) B.4 Lessons Learnt from Previous Earthquakes The previous paragraphs (Sections B.1 to B.3) have shed light on the structural deficiencies and relative damage observed in buildings and bridges during past earthquakes These severe full-scale tests of the seismic performance of structures have taught us important lessons, which are summarized in the sections below B.4.1 Requisites of RC Structures The assessment of the damage discussed in Sections B.2 and B.3 leads to the following conclusions: 332 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering Structural members of lateral resisting systems used for buildings and bridges should be detailed so that they exhibit ductile response under severe earthquake ground motions All other elements should be designed elastically Dissipative zones, e.g plastic hinges, require adequate concrete confinements Buckling of longitudinal steel rebars impairs the anchorage, while splicing of bars should not be carried out in regions of high stress concentration Likely sources of overstrength, e.g material mechanical properties and presence of slabs, should be accounted for in the design of dissipative elements in ductile systems Values of compressive axial loads in bridge piers and building columns should not exceed 25–30% of the squashing capacity High values of axial loads significantly reduce the dissipation capacity of piers and columns as also discussed in Section 2.3.3.1 High axial loads lower the maximum plastic rotations and increase the likelihood of buckling of longitudinal steel reinforcement bars Columns and piers should be designed to exhibit elastic response Tensile forces should be prevented; the latter give rise to brittle failure modes, e.g under high vertical components of earthquakes Short-column effects caused by partial infills in framed systems may be prevented by adopting adequate separation gaps This detail does not increase the shear stiffness of column members Failure modes involving shear and bond deteriorations should be avoided These are brittle failure modes and hence lower the energy dissipation of the structural system Consequently, flexural failure should anticipate that of shear Columns with shear span ratios αs greater than 4.0 are preferable to short columns (αs < 2.0) Close-spaced transverse stirrups or truss reinforcement may be adopted to prevent the degradation of shear resistance Configuration irregularities in plan and elevation should be avoided as also illustrated in Section A.1 Soft-storey mechanisms at the ground floor of buildings are, for example, often caused by infills only in the upper storeys Structural irregularities may also give rise to significant torsional effects Eccentricities between centre of mass (point of application of seismic – inertial – forces) and centre of rigidity (point of application of reaction of the structure) should be minimized Continuity in load path is an essential requirement for both gravity (vertical) and earthquake (horizontal and vertical) loads as also shown in Sections 2.3.2.2 and A.1 A high degree of structural redundancy should be guaranteed so that as many zones of inelasticity as possible are developed before a failure mechanism is created Redundant structures can accommodate large plastic redistributions Openings in slabs should be minimized because they detrimentally affect the in-plane strength and rigidity of horizontal diaphragms To prevent punching, additional steel reinforcement should be located at connection between flat slabs and columns, and between structural walls and slabs Joints should be provided at discontinuities between adjacent structures or part of them Separation gaps should employ adequate provisions for movements so that pounding and unseating, e.g of bridge spans, is avoided In multi-span bridges, sufficient gaps should be used both at abutments and between adjacent spans Overstressing of seismic restrainers should be avoided Uplift and sliding of foundation systems due to high overturning moments and shear forces often have detrimental effects on global structural response Large permanent ground displacements due to soil liquefaction and pile deformations should be accounted for in the design of buildings and bridges Several of the above requisites are also applicable to masonry, steel and composite structures Therefore, the following sections focus only on the design solutions specific to each material Appendix B 333 B.4.2 Requisites of Masonry Structures Masonry structures exhibit high vulnerability to seismic forces To prevent the damage patterns outlined in Section B.2.2, it is necessary to account for the following: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) Tight quality controls should be performed on construction materials, especially of mortar and masonry units in adobe and stone-masonry buildings Reinforced and confined masonry are preferable to URM The effect of reinforcement is to limit the amount of diagonal cracks and prevent toppling, particularly in perimeter walls In systems with confined masonry, this reinforcement should be anchored into the surrounding frame Structural and non-structural walls should possess limited slenderness to prevent global buckling Connections between orthogonal structural and non-structural walls are adequate to avoid overturning due to out-of-plane seismic forces Adequate connections should be provided between structural walls and slabs at each floor Slabs act as horizontal diaphragms and distribute horizontal seismic forces among vertical structural walls as illustrated in Section A.1 Diaphragmatic actions should, however, always be checked and are significantly reduced by the presence of large openings Bond beams should be located at each floor along perimeter walls to achieve monolithic behaviour of masonry structures Low values of length-to-width ratios in piers of structural walls should be avoided This type of geometric layout can give rise to severe brittle shear failures as also discussed in Section A.2.2 Large openings should be limited in structural masonry walls They significantly lower the strength capacity under earthquake loads Additionally, diagonal cracks often originate at the corner of large openings Adequate building layout is a fundamental requisite to survive moderate and severe earthquakes (see Appendix A) Simple and symmetrical configurations along each principal axis with a sufficient number of structural walls, and with approximately the same cross-sectional area and stiffness should be provided in each direction of the building B.4.3 Requisites of Steel and Composite Structures Steel and composite structures have shown generally adequate seismic performance under moderate and severe earthquakes Their energy dissipation capacity is endangered if the requisites summarized below are not satisfied: (i) Brittle failure modes, such as weld cracks and fracture, bolt fracture in tension or shear, should be avoided, even in response to a major seismic event (ii) Local buckling and global buckling can be avoided by adopting adequate width-to-thickness ratios and member slenderness (iii) Excessive column panel zone deformations in beam-to-column connections should be prevented These deformations may significantly increase lateral drifts of unbraced framed structures and impair their global stability (increased P-Δ effects) (iv) Overstrength due to the presence of composite slabs should be accounted for in the evaluation of the inelastic seismic demands of capacity-designed components, e.g beams in MRFs, diagonal braces in CBFs and links in EBFs 334 Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering References Ambraseys, N.N., Elnashai, A.S., Bommer, J.J., Haddar, F., Madas, P., Elghazouli, A.Y and Vogt, J (1990) The Chenoua (Algeria) Earthquake of 29 October 1989, Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, Report No ESEE/90-4, Imperial College, London, UK Ambraseys, N.N., Elnashai, A.S., Broderick, B.M., Salama, A.I and Soliman, M.M (1992) The Erzincan (Turkey) Earthquake of 13 March 1992, Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, Report No ESEE/92-11, Imperial College, London, UK Aoyama, H (2001) Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Series on Innovation in Structures and Construction, Vol 3, A.S Elnashai and P.J Dowling, Eds., Imperial College Press, London, UK Astaneh-Asl, A., Bertero, V.V., Bolt, B., Mahin, S.A., Moehle, J.P and Seed, R.B (1989) Preliminary report on the seismological and engineering aspects of the October 17, 1989 Santa Cruz (Loma Prieta) earthquake Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of Berkeley, Report No UCB/EERC-89/14, Berkeley, CA, USA Bertero, V.V (1996) Implications of observed pounding of buildings on seismic code regulations Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Disc N.4, Paper N.2102, CD-ROM Braga, F., Briseghella, L and Pinto, P.E (1977) The Friuli (Italy) May and September 1976 earthquake: A brief survey of the damage Proceedings of the 6th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Sarita Prakashan, Meerut, India, Vol I, pp 289–294 Broderick, B.M., Elnashai, A.S., Ambraseys, N.N., Barr, J.M., Goodfellow, R.G and Higazy, E.M (1994) The Northridge (California) Earthquake of 17 January 1994: Observations, Strong Motion and Correlative Response Analysis Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, Research Report No ESEE 94/4, Imperial College, London, UK Bruneau, M (1998) Performance of steel bridges during the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe, Japan) earthquake – A North American perspective Engineering Structures, 20(12), 1063–1078 Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) (1994) Northridge Earthquake January 17, 1994 Preliminary Reconnaissance Report J.F Hall, Ed., EERI, CA, USA Elnashai, A.S (1998) Observations on the Effects of the Adana-Ceyhan (Turkey) Earthquake of 27 June 1998 Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, Report No ESEE/98-5, Imperial College, London, UK Elnashai, A.S (1999) The Kocaeli (Turkey) Earthquake of 17 August 1999: Assessment of Spectra and Structural Response Analysis Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, Report No ESEE/99-3, Imperial College, London, UK Elnashai, A.S., Bommer, J.J and Elghazouli, A.Y (1989) The Loma Prieta (Santa Cruz, California) Earthquake of 17 October 1989 Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, Report No ESEE/98-9, Imperial College, London, UK Elnashai, A.S., Bommer, J.J., Baron, I., Salama, A.I and Lee, D (1995) Selected Engineering Seismology and Structural Engineering Studies of the Hyogo-ken Nanbu (Kobe, Japan) Earthquake of 17 January 1995 Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, Report No ESEE/95-2, Imperial College, London, UK Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2000) State of the art report on past performance of steel moment frame buildings in earthquakes Report No FEMA 355E, Washington, DC, USA Goltz, J.D (1994) The Northridge, California Earthquake of January 17, 1994: General Reconnaissance Report National Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research, Report No NCEER-94-0005, Buffalo, NY, USA Kawashima, K (1995) Seismic design for construction and repair of highway bridges that suffered damage by the Hanshin Awaji great earthquake In Building for the 21st Century, Y.C Loo, Ed., EASEC-5, Gold Coast, Australia Matos, C.G and Dodds, R.H (2002) Probabilistic modelling of weld fracture in steel frame connections Part II: Seismic loadings Engineering Structures, 24(6), 687–705 Miller, D.K (1998) Lessons learned from the Northridge earthquake Engineering Structures, 20(4–6), 249–260 Naeim, F (2001) The Seismic Design Handbook 2nd Edition, Kluwer Academic Publisher, New York, NY, USA Naeim, F., Lew, M., Huang, C.H., Lam, H.K and Carpenter, L.D (2000) The performance of tall buildings during the 21 September 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake Taiwan The Structural Design of Tall Buildings, 9(2), 137–160 Nakashima, M., Inoue, K and Tada, M (1998) Classification of damage to steel buildings observed in the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake Engineering Structures, 20(4–6), 271–281 Nateghi, F.A (1995) Retrofitting of earthquake damaged steel buildings Engineering Structures, 17(10), 749–755 Nateghi, F.A (1997) Seismic upgrade design of a low-rise steel buildings Engineering Structures, 19(11), 954–963 National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering (NISEE) (2000) Image Database http://www.nisee.org Penelis, G.G and Kappos, A.J (1997) Earthquake Resistant Concrete Structures E & FN SPON-Chapman & Hall, London, UK Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F and Calvi, G.M (1996) Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA Roeder, C.W (2002) Connection performance for seismic design of steel moment frames Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 128(4), 517–525 Rosenblueth, E., Ruiz, S.E and Thiel, C.C (1989) The Michoacan Earthquake: Collected Papers Published in Earthquake Spectra, Volumes and 5, 1988 and 1989 Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, El Cerrito, CA, USA Saeki, S., Kurihara, T., Toriumi, R and Nishjtani, M (1997) Effect of the Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake on the Akashi Kaikyo bridge Proceedings of the 2nd Italy-Japan Workshop on Seismic Design and Retrofit of bridges, 27–28 February, Rome, Italy Watanabe, E., Sugiura, K., Nagata, K and Kitane, Y (1998) Performances and damages to steel structures during 1995 HyogokenNanbu earthquake Engineering Structures, 20(4–6), 282–290 Appendix B 335 Yasuda, T., Moritani, T., Fukunaga, S and Kawabata, A (2000) Seismic behavior and simulation analysis of Honshu-Shikoku bridges Journal of Structural Engineering, JSCE, 46A, 685–694 Youssef, N.F.G., Bonowitz, D and Gross, J.L (1995) A survey of steel moment-resisting frame buildings affected by the 1994 Northridge earthquake Report No NISTR 56254, National Institute for Science and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA Index A Abutment 322–3, 331–2 Acceleration 67, 85, 107, 151, 159, 162, 222, 229, 250 ground 16, 132, 143, 151, 170, 172, 231, 240, 242, 252–4, 256 horizontal 121, 123, 157 spectrum 122, 130, 133, 135, 137–9, 142–3, 147–8, 153, 156, 164, 172, 177–8 threshold 168, 170–1 time history 170, 173 vertical 138, 153 Accelerogram 125, 132, 139, 156–7, 159, 170, 177 Accuracy 191–2, 204, 211–2, 218, 227, 230, 243 Action 49, 99, 198, 285 distribution 63–4, 66–7, 274–5, 285 strut 79, 83–4 Alluvium 145–6 Amplification 52, 130, 154–5, 166 Amplitude 10, 12–3, 18–9, 21, 25, 28, 30–1, 40, 139, 157 Analysis 194, 205, 216 dynamic 130, 136, 186, 188, 192, 194, 208, 219–21, 223, 230–2, 235 eigenvalue 219, 224, 236–7, 239 modal 190, 218, 223–4, 227–8, 230, 237, 239, 243 pushover 186, 236–7 Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering ©2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd response history 103, 105, 223, 229–31, 238, 256 seismic 192, 208, 218, 220, 226 spectral 192, 223–4, 226–9 structural 49, 161, 177, 185, 209, 220, 233, 243, 249 Anchorage 294, 298, 310, 312, 331–2 Angle 6–8, 26–7 Approach 119, 122, 136–7, 143, 145, 153, 155, 158–61, 239 Aspect ratio 263, 269–70, 275, 281 Assessment 72, 84, 99, 119, 122, 136–7, 155, 161, 163, 168, 185, 195, 198–9, 215, 220, 233, 247–9 seismic 196, 214, 243–4, 253–4 structural 150, 173, 186, 246, 248–9 Asthenosphere Attenuation 122–3, 152, 156, 172 model 139, 141 B Bar 56, 77–8, 82–4, 90, 93, 96, 293, 295, 304 Base, shear (see shear) Beam 49, 57, 61, 64–7, 77–80, 82–4, 86, 91–3, 96–9, 103, 188, 192, 200, 202–6, 208–12, 214–6, 218–9, 234, 248, 252, 265–66, 270–1, 274–80, 282–5, 291, 293–5, 298, 300, 304, 312–4, 316–7, 327–8, 333 Bedrock 28, 36, 153 Behaviour 91–92, 197–8, 202, 205, 231, 233–4, 274, 285 Amr S Elnashai and Luigi Di Sarno 338 factor 144–5, 148 hysteretic 205, 230, 250 inelastic 196, 201, 205, 208, 243, 270, 272, 277 Bending (see moment) Bond 75, 78, 82, 92, 98 Boundary 4, 12–3, 23 condition 56–7, 61, 96, 211–2 Brace 192, 203, 215, 271–2, 276, 278–80, 286 Bracing 272, 274, 278 Bridge 34–5, 38, 40, 186, 192, 218–9, 226–7, 238, 243, 246–7, 252, 257, 263, 270, 274, 276–8, 280, 291–2, 318–9, 321–3, 325, 330–2 Brittle 85, 99, 107 Buckling 36, 76, 82–4, 95, 249, 251, 272, 276, 279–80, 282, 286, 293, 295, 312–3, 317– 9, 323, 326–8, 332 global 293, 313–4, 333 local 35, 56, 77, 91–2, 98, 313–6, 333 Building 15, 27, 29–31, 34–5, 37–8, 40, 42–3, 63, 66, 69, 70, 77, 80, 98, 102–5, 110–1, 188, 212, 228, 231, 234, 264, 272, 281 framed 96, 214, 219 C Calibration 195, 197, 208 Cantilever 278, 281–2 Capacity 47–9, 51–4, 63, 72–3, 75, 77, 79, 83, 96, 98, 103, 119, 185, 195, 230, 232, 234, 249, 258 curve 234, 251, 298, 330, 333 Casualties 41–2 Centreline 208, 214 Code 136, 147, 151, 153, 155, 161–2, 165, 188–9, 233, 237, 239–42, 257 seismic 186, 188–90, 239–40, 243, 247 Coefficient of variation (COV) 75, 99 Coherence 31 Collapse 230–1, 234, 240, 244, 246–7, 249 Column 35, 49, 57, 59, 64–7, 74, 77–80, 82–4, 86, 90–3, 95–9, 103, 188, 192, 202–6, 208, 212, 214–6, 224, 248, 252, 255–6, 264, 266, 270–2, 274, 276–87, 291, 293, 295, 297–8, 302–5, 312–8, 323, 327–8, 330, 332 strong column – weak beams (SCWB) 64, 66, 98–9 weak column-strong beams (WCSB) 64, 66, 98–9 Index Combination 188 load (see load) Community 35, 44 Component 10, 34–5, 48–9, 53, 56–7, 73, 76, 78–80, 85, 88, 91, 99, 101, 128, 130, 152, 173, 185–6, 200, 208, 212, 222, 246, 250, 263, 265, 272, 274, 278, 280, 283 structural 57, 59–60, 72–3, 75, 77, 79, 80, 83–4, 86, 90, 96, 99, 106–7, 111, 203–4, 244, 265, 270, 273–4, 283–5 vertical 128, 130, 152–3, 173, 190–1, 266, 268–9, 274, 276 Composite 291 bridge 292, 319 building 277, 283–4, 293, 312–3 column 326 frame 208, 211, 214–5, 316 member 92, 102, 313 section 200–2, 251 structure 78, 84, 93–4, 99, 116, 202, 204, 242, 281, 332–3 wall 282 Compression 77, 83, 88, 90, 98, 196, 198, 279, 282, 285, 294–5 Computer program 132, 159, 175 Concentration 263–5, 270, 272–3 Configuration 84, 263–7, 270, 272, 274, 276, 278, 284, 284–7 Confinement 75, 78, 88–90, 198–9, 202 Connection 34–5, 47, 56–7, 60–1, 63–4, 75, 77–80, 82–3, 85–6, 88, 92–3, 95, 99, 106–7, 185, 189, 208, 216–8, 247–8, 250, 265, 278, 291, 292, 298, 303–4, 312–3, 315–6, 318, 321, 332–3 base 80, 93 beam-to-column 61, 66–7, 78, 92–3, 98, 192, 204, 209, 212, 214, 219, 252, 254, 316, 327 Connectivity 212 Construction 56, 94, 99, 103, 106–7, 109, 111, 200–1, 206, 242, 247, 258, 263, 265, 268, 275–6, 280, 282, 291–2, 303, 307, 309, 318–9, 331 material 56–7, 63, 74–5, 79, 89, 94, 99, 106–7, 109, 274, 291, 293, 303, 318, 333 Continent 1, 3, 4, 156–7 Convergence 234 Core 265, 280, 284 Index Corner 265, 267–8, 270, 282, 285 Correlation 15, 19, 21–2, 31, 139, 149, 164–5, 171 Cost 40, 42–3 Covariance 31 Crack 4, 15, 37, 70, 73, 82, 107, 198, 268, 276, 282, 294–5, 299, 327, 333 Cracking 197–8, 202, 209, 211, 214–5, 249, 294, 298–9, 307, 309–10 Crushing 198, 202, 248–9, 252 Crust 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 12–3, 19 Curvature 83, 86, 89–91, 94, 96, 98, 202–4, 215, 251, 276, 278, 282 Curve 11–2, 130, 136, 141–2, 144, 151, 177, 196, 198, 230–1 Cycle 88–9, 108–9, 158, 160, 163, 168, 171–3 D Damage 4, 10, 12–3, 15–6, 18, 24–7, 29, 32–7, 40–4, 54, 57, 73, 75, 83–4, 89, 98, 111, 121, 123, 162, 164, 168, 171, 192, 231, 233, 240, 244, 246–7, 251, 265, 267, 270, 272–4, 292–5, 297–300, 302, 304, 306–7, 309–10, 312–9, 321–3, 327, 330–1 pattern 292, 294, 298–9, 305, 307, 309–10, 331, 333 structural 29, 33–5, 64, 75, 80, 82–3, 88, 123, 163–4, 231, 247, 273, 297, 303–4, 317 Damping 47, 52–3, 89, 106–9, 111–2, 132–3, 136, 138–41, 146–7, 151, 154, 173, 178, 192, 222–3, 225, 229–30, 232, 250 foundation 106 friction 107 hysteretic 89, 107 matrix 225, 229–30 radiation 106 ratio 133–4, 138–9, 164, 172–3 structural 106–7, 110–1, 130, 151, 242 supplemental 106 viscous 107–9, 111, 133, 177 Databank 124, 134, 156–8, 176 Database 173, 177 Death 4, 36, 42–3 Deck 219, 319 Defect 291–2 Deficiency 291–2, 331 Deformation 52, 59, 61, 64, 67, 83, 85–6, 88, 93–6, 98, 106, 114, 185, 192, 213, 215–6, 339 226–7, 229, 231–5, 244, 247–9, 251, 257, 279, 314 Degree 15, 18–9, 27, 36, 39, 192, 197, 223, 225, 240, 258 Demand 264–5, 272 Density 10, 28 Depth 1, 4, 8, 9, 11–2, 16, 18, 28–9, 126–9, 156 focal 8, 15, 25, 33, 40, 123, 128, 157 Design 49, 53, 57, 70, 84, 90, 92–3, 98–9, 101, 103, 105, 111–3, 185, 189, 215, 226, 256– 7, 274, 278, 288 conceptual 263, 265 structural 136, 151 Device 56, 106–7 Diaphragm 82, 103, 204, 209–10, 212, 217, 219, 234, 266, 274, 285, 287, 291–2, 321, 332–3 Dip 6, Direction 6, 12, 26–7 Directivity 9, 16, 27 Discontinuity 266, 269–70, 272 Dispersion 26, 30–1, 148, 163, 166 Displacement 6–7, 26, 48, 59–60, 63, 65, 72, 86, 93–6, 107, 109, 112–3, 191–2, 202–4, 222, 224, 226–7, 229, 233–8, 249, 251–2, 282 ground 122, 136, 139, 143, 173 lateral 60, 93, 95–6, 113, 234, 241, 249–51 Discretization 192, 202, 212, 249, 251 Dissipation 88, 106–8, 112 Distance 4, 6, 9, 11–3, 16, 18, 24–7, 31 epicentral 8, 15, 18–20, 33, 122, 124, 127–9, 147, 150, 152, 253 focal 8, 10, 126, 128 Distribution 15, 26, 63, 66–7, 69, 75, 77, 86–8, 91, 93–4, 98, 112, 120–1, 124, 126, 136, 139, 144, 146, 149, 151, 156–7, 164, 177, 192, 202, 216, 218, 233, 235–6, 238–9, 241–2, 246, 252, 257, 264–6, 269, 284–5 load 233, 235–6, 241 phase 159–61 ductility 49, 86–7, 105, 141, 144, 148 demand 162, 164–5 displacement 145, 163–4, 177 Drift 63, 67, 72–3, 83, 158, 236, 281 Duration 27, 130, 168, 170–1 bracketed 168, 170–1 significant 168 uniform 168, 170–1 [...]... Governments of Pakistan and Indonesia, among others Amr enjoys scuba-diving and holds several certificates from the British Sub-Aqua Club and the US Professional Association of Diving Instructors He also enjoys reading on history, the history of painting and film-making Dr Luigi Di Sarno Dr Luigi Di Sarno is Assistant Professor in Earthquake Engineering at the University of Sannio (Benevento), and holds the... Wiley & Sons, Ltd Amr S Elnashai and Luigi Di Sarno 2 Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering EARTH DISTURBANCES CONTINUOUS DISTURBANCES ARTIFICIAL SINGLE DISTURBANCES NATURAL ARTIFICIAL NATURAL Traffic Minor causes Meteorological Machinery Blasting Storms Collapse of caves Large slides and slumps Volcanic shocks Explosive tests Wind Rock burst in mines Frost Demolitions Water in motion Tectonic shocks Bombing... Ramberg-Osgood model RF = Regular Frame RSA = Response Spectrum Analysis SCWB = Strong Column-Weak Beam SDOF = Single-Degree -Of- Freedom SH = Shear Horizontal SI = Spectral Intensity SL = Serviceability Limit SPEAR = Seismic Performance Assessment and Rehabilitation SRSS = Square Root of the Sum of Squares SV = Shear Vertical SW = Structural Wall TS = Tube System URM = Unreinforced masonry USA = United States... (iii) all structural response characteristics are presented on the material, section, member, sub-assemblage and structural system levels The four chapters of the book cover an overview of earthquake causes and effects, structural response characteristics, features and representations of strong ground motion, and modelling and analysis of structural systems, including design and assessment response quantities... buildings and bridges categorized according to the cause of failure The last section is on earthquake losses and includes global statistics, as well as description of the various aspects of impact of earthquakes on communities in a regional context Chapter 2, which belongs to the Supply or Capacity sub-topic, establishes a new framework of understanding structural response and relating milestones of such... histories, as well as a discussion of the significance of duration on response of inelastic structures Chapter 4 concludes the Supply sub-topic by discussing important aspects of analytically representing the structure and the significance or otherwise of some modelling details The chapter is presented in a manner consistent with Chapter 2 in terms of dealing with modelling of materials, sections, members,... xxiii 1 Earthquake Characteristics 1.1 Causes of Earthquakes 1.1.1 Plate Tectonics Theory An earthquake is manifested as ground shaking caused by the sudden release of energy in the Earth s crust This energy may originate from different sources, such as dislocations of the crust, volcanic eruptions, or even by man-made explosions or the collapse of underground cavities, such as mines or karsts Thus, while... Causes, Measurements and Effects RESPONSE EVALUATION Modelling of Structures and Measures of Response Scope of the book Chapter 1 belongs to the Demand sub-topic and is a standard exposé of the geological, seismological and earth sciences aspects pertinent to structural earthquake engineering It concludes with two sections; one on earthquake damage, bolstered by a detailed Appendix of pictures of damaged... evaluation Use Scenarios Postgraduate Educators and Students As discussed in the preceding section, the book was written with the university professor in mind as one of the main users, alongside students attending a graduate course It therefore includes a large number of work assignments and additional worked examples, provided on the book web site Most importantly, summary slides are also provided... short courses on a number of occasions in different countries For the earthquake engineering professor, the whole book is recommended for postgraduate courses, with the exception of methods of analysis (Section 4.5 in Chapter 4) which are typically taught in structural dynamics courses that should be a prerequisite to this course Researchers The book is also useful to researchers who have studied earthquake