JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Seismic Behavior of Inverted T-type Wall under Earthquake Part II : Effect of Input Earthquake Motion
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Seismic Behavior of Inverted T-type Wall under Earthquake Part II : Effect of Input Earthquake Motion
Lee, Jin-sun;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Permanent deformation plays a key role in performance based earthquake resistant design. In order to estimate permanent deformation after earthquake, it is essential to secure reliable response history analysis(RHA) as well as earthquake scenario. This study focuses on permanent deformation of an inverted T-type wall under earthquake. The study is composed of two separate parts. The first one is on the verification of RHA and the second one is on an effect of input earthquake motion. The former is discussed in companion paper and the latter in this paper. In order to investigate the effect of an input earthquake motion on the permanent deformation, three bins of spectral matched real earthquake records with different magnitude, regions, epicentral distance are constructed. Parametric study was performed using the verified RHA through the companion paper for each earthquake records in the bins. The most influential parameter affecting permanent displacement is magnitude. The other parameters describing earthquake motion are not significant enough to increase permanent displacement of the inverted T-type wall except for energy related parameters(AI, CI, SEI).
 Keywords
Performance based earthquake resistant design;Response history analysis;Nonlinear numerical analysis;Spectral matching;Input earthquake motion;Retaining wall;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
Nozu A, Ichii K, Sugano T. Seismic design of port structures. J. of Japan Association for Earthquake Engineering. 2004;4(3):195-208. crossref(new window)

2.
Lee JS. Seismic behavior of inverted T-type wall under earthquake Part I : Verification of the numerical modeling techniques. EESK J Earthquake Eng. in print.

3.
Bommer JJ, Acevedo AB. The use of real earthquake accelerograms as input to dynamic analysis. J. of Earthquake Engineering. 2004;8(S1):43-91.

4.
Katsanos EI, Sextos AG, Manolis GD. Selection of earthquake ground motion records: A state-of-the-art review from a structural engineering perspective. Soil dynamics and earthquake engineering. 2010;30:157-169. crossref(new window)

5.
Kalkan E, Luco N. Special issue on earthquake ground-motion selection and modification for nonlinear dynamic analysis of structures. J. of structural engineering ASCE. 2011;137:277. crossref(new window)

6.
Baker JW. Conditional mean spectrum: Tool for ground-motion selection. J. of structural engineering ASCE. 2011;137:322-331. crossref(new window)

7.
Lin T, Baker J. Probabilistic seismic hazard deaggregation of ground motion prediction models. Proceedings of 5th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering. 2011;10-13.

8.
CEN. Eurocode 8 : Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part I: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization; c2003.

9.
CEN. Eurocode 8 : Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part II: bridges, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization; c2003.

10.
Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE. c2006.

11.
Seismic analysis of safety-related nuclear structures and commentary. ASCE. c2000.

12.
NEHRP Part1 : recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures. 2000 edition. FEMA; c2000.

13.
Structural design actions Part 5: earthquake actions-New Zealand. Standards New Zealand; c2004.

14.
Ordinanza del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri (OPCM) n. 3274. Norme tecniche per il progetto, c2003.

15.
EPPO Hellenic Antiseismic Code : Ministry of Public Works; c2000.

16.
박광순. 시설물 내진설계기준 현황 및 개선방안. 시설물저널 기획특집. 2013;18-31.

17.
Atik LA, Abrahamson N. An improved method for nonstationary spectral matching. Earthquake spectra. 2010;26(3):601-617. crossref(new window)

18.
Lee JS. Appropriate input earthquake motion for the verification of seismic response analysis by geotechnical dynamic centrifuge test. EESK J. Earthquake Eng. 2013;17(5):209-217. crossref(new window)

19.
Mejia LH, Dawson EM. Earthquake deconvolution for FLAC. In: Proceedings of 4th international FLAC symposium on numerical modeling in geomechanics; 2006 Madrid, Spain. c2006.

20.
Arias A. A measure of earthquake intensity. in R.J.Hansen, ed. Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1970;438-483.

21.
Ang AHS. Reliability bases for seismic safety assessment and design, Proceedings. Fourth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, EERI Palm Springs. 1990;1:29-45.

22.
Benjamin JR. A criterion for determining exceedance of the operating basis earthquake. EPRI Report NP-5930. Electric Power Research Institute. Palo Alto. c1988.

23.
Von Thun JL, Rochim LH, Scott GA, Wilson JA. Earthquake ground motions for design and analysis of dams. Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II - Recent Advances in Ground-Motion Evaluation. Geotechnical Special Publication. 1988;20:463-481.

24.
Housner GW. Behavior of structures during earthquakes. J. of the engineering mechanics division ASCE. 1959;85(EM14):109-129.

25.
Nuttli OW. The relation of sustained maximum ground acceleration and velocity to earthquake intensity and magnitude. Miscellaneous Paper S-71-1. Report 16. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Waterways Experiment Station. c1979.

26.
Sarma SK, Yang KS. An evaluation of strong motion records and a new parameter A95. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 1987;15:119-132. crossref(new window)

27.
Makdisi FI, Seed HB. Simplified procedure for estimating dam and embankement earthquake-induced deformations. J of the geotechnical engineering division ASCE. 1978;104(GT7):849-867.