English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In the United States, regulatory seismic codes (for example, California Building Code) require at least two sets of horizontal ground-motion components for three-dimensional (3D) response history analysis (RHA) of building structures. For sites within 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) of an active fault, these records should be rotated to fault-normal and fault-parallel (FN/FP) directions, and two RHAs should be performed separatelywhen FN and then FP direction are aligned with transverse direction of the building axes. This approach is assumed to lead to two sets of responses that envelope the range of possible responses over all nonredundant rotation angles. The validity of this assumption is examined here using 3D computer models of singlestory structures having symmetric (torsionally stiff) and asymmetric (torsionally flexible) layouts subjected to an ensemble of near-fault ground motions with and without apparent velocity pulses. In this parametric study, the elastic vibration period is varied from 0.2 to 5 seconds, and yieldstrength reduction factors, R, are varied from a value that leads to linear-elastic design to 3 and 5. Further validations are performed using 3D computer models of 9-story structures having symmetric and asymmetric layouts subjected to the same ground-motion set. The influence of the ground-motion rotation angle on several engineering demand parameters (EDPs) is examined in both linear-elastic and nonlinear-inelastic domains to form benchmarks for evaluating the use of the FN/FP directions and also the maximum direction (MD). The MD ground motion is a new definition for horizontal ground motions for use in site-specific ground-motion procedures for seismic design according to provisions of the American Society of Civil Engineers/Seismic Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI) 7-10. The results of this study have important implications for current practice, suggesting that ground motions rotated to MD or FN/FP directions do not necessarily provide the most critical EDPs in nonlinear-inelastic domain; however, they tend to produce larger EDPs than as-recorded (arbitrarily oriented) motions. Introduction In the United States, both the International Building Code (ICBO, 2009) and the California Building Code (CBC2010) (ICBO, 2010) refer to American Society of Civil Engineers/Seismic Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI) 7-05 chapter 16 (ASCE, 2006) when response history analysis (RHA) is required for design verification of building structures. These Universidad de los Andes, Bogota, Colombia. U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California.

Should ground-motion records be rotated to fault-normal/parallel or maximum direction for response history analysis of buildings?