Journal of Earthquake Engineering

ISSN: 1363-2469 (Print) 1559-808X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

Influence of Near-Fault Ground Motions with Fling-

Step and Forward-Directivity Characteristics on
Seismic Response of Base-Isolated Buildings

Satish Bhagat, Anil C. Wijeyewickrema & Naresh Subedi

To cite this article: Satish Bhagat, Anil C. Wijeyewickrema & Naresh Subedi (2018): Influence
of Near-Fault Ground Motions with Fling-Step and Forward-Directivity Characteristics on
Seismic Response of Base-Isolated Buildings, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, DOI:
10.1080/13632469.2018.1520759

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2018.1520759

Published online: 05 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueqe20
JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2018.1520759

Influence of Near-Fault Ground Motions with Fling-Step and

Forward-Directivity Characteristics on Seismic Response of
Base-Isolated Buildings
Satish Bhagat, Anil C. Wijeyewickrema, and Naresh Subedi
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The behavior of base-isolated buildings under near-fault (NF) ground Received 30 March 2018
motions with fling-step and forward-directivity characteristics is Accepted 31 August 2018
investigated using three-dimensional nonlinear finite element mod- KEYWORDS
els. Nonlinear response history analysis (NLRHA) is also carried out Artificial Pulses; Base-Isolated
after removing the dominant pulse from the NF ground motion Buildings; Fling-Step;
records. The results obtained for 10-story base-isolated buildings Forward-Directivity; Near-Fault
with and without shear walls, indicate that NF ground motions with Ground Motions; Pulse Period
fling-step and forward-directivity characteristics produce large inter-
story drift ratios and floor accelerations, compared to the case when
the dominant pulse is removed. Additional NLRHA carried out using
artificial pulses shows that the isolator and superstructure responses
are larger for pulses with fling-step characteristics, compared to
pulses with forward-directivity characteristics.

1. Introduction
A fling-step in a near-fault (NF) ground motion displacement record is caused when
there is a permanent displacement of the ground due to rupture during the seismic
activity [Bolt and Abrahamson, 2003], while forward-directivity effects are caused when
the fault rupture propagates toward the site with a velocity almost as large as the shear
wave velocity [Somerville et al., 1997]. NF ground motions with fling-step and forward-
directivity characteristics can be identified from the velocity and displacement time-
histories. In general, ground motion with fling-step characteristics contain a one-sided
dominant velocity pulse resulting in a monotonic step in the displacement time-history,
whereas, ground motion with forward-directivity characteristics contain a two-sided
dominant velocity pulse. Therefore, buildings subjected to such ground motions need
to dissipate energy in a few cycles, as they are exposed to large amounts of seismic
energy in a relatively short time duration [Kalkan and Kunnath, 2006; Liossatou and
Fardis, 2016]. There could be coupling between forward-directivity and fling-step effects
in NF ground motion records [Abrahamson, 2000; Mavroeidis and Papageorgiou, 2003].
In addition, some NF ground motion records do not contain distinct pulses in the
acceleration, velocity or displacement histories [Malhotra, 1999]. Commonly employed
ground motion processing techniques which involve a combination of filtering and

CONTACT Anil C. Wijeyewickrema wijeyewickrema.a.aa@m.titech.ac.jp Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, O-okayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8552, Japan
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ueqe.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 S. BHAGAT ET AL.

baseline correction, remove the fling characteristics from the NF record. Appropriate
processing of ground motion records and other related issues are discussed in Boore and
Bommer [2005]. It has been recently recognized by Shahi and Baker [2014] that in the
case of pulses caused by directivity effects, the algorithms proposed by Baker [2007] and
Shahi and Baker [2011] may lead to false-positive classifications i.e., non-pulse like
ground motions classified as pulse-like and false-negative classifications i.e., pulse like
ground motions not classified as pulse-like. This important issue has also been discussed
by Mazza [2018].
A number of studies to investigate the seismic response of fixed-base buildings under
NF ground motions with fling-step and forward-directivity characteristics have been
carried out previously. Alavi and Krawinkler [2004] studied the effects of forward direc-
tivity on a generic 20-story, single-bay frame. The effect of the pulse period on structural
response has been investigated by Alavi and Krawinkler [2004] and Mavroeidis et al.
[2004]. Kalkan and Kunnath [2006] compared the response of steel moment resisting
frame buildings using NF ground motions with fling-step and forward-directivity char-
acteristics and far-fault (FF) ground motions, and concluded that ground motions with
fling-step characteristics resulted in a first mode dominant building response, while
ground motions with forward-directivity characteristics caused higher modes to be
excited. Ventura et al. [2011] and Jamnani et al. [2013] studied the effects of ground
motions with fling-step characteristics on high-rise reinforced concrete (RC) buildings
(the latter study used a SDOF system to model high-rise buildings) and also the effect of
the removal of fling-step. Ventura et al. [2011] suggested that the presence of fling-step
characteristics increases the seismic demand of the buildings, while Jamnani et al. [2013]
showed a dependence of the seismic demands on the ratio of pulse period of the NF
ground motion record to fundamental period of the buildings. Vafaei and Eskandari
[2015] conducted nonlinear response history analysis of steel buildings with mega buck-
ling-restrained braces, using NF ground motions with fling-step and forward-directivity
characteristics and FF ground motions, and concluded that NF ground motions result in
larger seismic demands compared to FF ground motions, while NF ground motions with
fling-step characteristics had more dispersion in the results. Beiraghi et al. [2016] inves-
tigated the effects of NF ground motions with forward-directivity characteristics and FF
ground motions on tall RC buildings and reported that NF ground motions with forward-
directivity characteristics induced larger curvature ductility, inter-story drift ratio, and
displacement demands compared to FF ground motions. Moniri [2017] studied the
response of RC buildings under NF ground motions with fling-step characteristics and
FF ground motions, and concluded that inter-story drift demands are about two times
larger for NF ground motions with fling-step characteristics compared to that of FF
ground motions.
The elongation of the fundamental period of the building by the use of an isolation
system, provides an enhancement in the performance by reducing the superstructure
response compared to fixed-base buildings [see for e.g. Chen et al., 2007; Calugaru and
Panagiotou, 2014; Bhagat and Wijeyewickrema 2018; Bhandari et al., 2018]. Although the
response of the building is significantly reduced by the use of an isolation system, there
can be an amplification in the seismic demands of such long period structures, due to the
velocity pulse present in NF ground motions with fling-step and forward-directivity
characteristics.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 3

The influence of NF ground motions on the performance of base-isolated buildings has

been investigated previously, with the focus on the behavior of the isolation system as well
as the superstructure. In a study by Hall et al. [1995], it was found that large displacements
occurring in base-isolated buildings under NF ground motions with pulse-like behavior
could be of critical concern. Jangid and Kelly [2001] investigated the performance of
isolation systems under NF ground motions focusing on the effects of damping in the
isolation system, and found that there exists a value of isolation system damping for which
the superstructure acceleration attains a minimum value. Jangid [2007] investigated the
performance of base-isolated buildings using different isolation system parameters and
found that the isolator displacements are significantly large for lower values of yield
strength under NF ground motions. The study by Providakis [2008] based on nonlinear
static analysis, showed that base-isolated buildings could be subjected to extreme non-
linear behavior in the superstructure under NF excitations. Mazza and Vulcano [2009,
2012] found that NF ground motions could induce large ductility demands on base-
isolated buildings, especially at the lower stories, and also showed that the pulse period of
ground motions significantly affects the response of the buildings. The influence of NF
ground motions considering the effect of pounding with a moat wall was investigated by
Pant and Wijeyewickrema [2013, 2014] and it was shown that NF ground motions could
result in significantly larger seismic demands on base-isolated buildings when there is
impact with a nearby structure. Bhagat and Wijeyewickrema [2017] evaluated the perfor-
mance of base-isolated buildings under bi-directional NF and FF ground motions and
found that NF ground motions result in larger superstructure as well as isolation system
seismic demands. Although Pant and Wijeyewickrema [2013, 2014] and Bhagat and
Wijeyewickrema [2017] performed a comprehensive evaluation of base-isolated moment
resisting frame buildings, under NF and FF bidirectional excitation using three-dimen-
sional finite element models; in these studies the NF ground motions having fling-step and
forward-directivity characteristics were not considered separately. Bhandari et al. [2018]
investigated a base-isolated building under NF ground motions with fling-step and for-
ward-directivity characteristics, and FF ground motions, and showed that NF ground
motions with fling-step characteristics induce larger seismic demands on the base-isolated
superstructure, compared to the other ground motions. The study by Bhandari et al.
[2018] considered only two NF ground motions with fling-step and two NF ground
motions with forward-directivity characteristics and the analysis was carried out using a
two-dimensional planar model of a 10-story base-isolated building. However, the depen-
dence of superstructure and isolator response on pulse characteristics and the influence of
removal of fling-step and forward-directivity effects from the ground motion records were
not investigated by Bhandari et al. [2018]. The effect of fling-step removal on the response
of seismically isolated structures has been investigated by Yang et al. [2017].
Although a few previous numerical studies have considered the performance of base-
isolated buildings under NF and FF ground motions, a detailed study using NF ground
motions with fling-step and forward-directivity characteristics has not been carried out.
Hence, in the present study the response of a 10-story base-isolated moment resisting
frame (BI-MRF) building and a 10-story base-isolated shear wall-frame (BI-SWF) building
is evaluated, under design earthquake (DE) level and risk-targeted maximum considered
earthquake (MCER) level NF ground motions with fling-step and forward-directivity
characteristics, using three-dimensional finite element models. In addition, to understand
4 S. BHAGAT ET AL.

how the presence of NF pulses affect the behavior of base-isolated buildings, the effect of
pulse removal from the ground motion records is also studied. Finally, the influence of
pulse period on the response of superstructure and isolation system response is also
investigated, through the use of artificially generated pulses.

2. Building Description and Design

In this study, 10-story base-isolated RC buildings with and without shear walls are considered.
The buildings are regular in plan and have 3-bays in the longitudinal direction and 2-bays in
the transverse direction (Figure 1). The bay width is 6.0 m in both directions and each story is
3.7 m high. Shear walls with wall length 5.0 m and wall thickness 0.4 m are placed along the
transverse direction in the outer frames of the BI-SWF building. The buildings are designed
following the provisions of the International Building Code [ICC, 2012], ASCE 7–10 [ASCE,
2010], and ACI 318–11 [ACI 2011]. The design response spectrum was constructed for an
arbitrary location in California described by coordinates 33.75 N, 117.9 W and the soil is
considered to be stiff soil (site class D). The buildings are intended to be used as office
buildings (risk category III). The mapped MCER spectral response acceleration parameters are
SS ¼ 1:447g and S1 ¼ 0:532g at short periods and 1-s period, respectively. The superstructure
was designed for the forces associated with DE whereas the isolation system was designed for
the effects of MCER. The compressive strength of concrete is 41 MPa and the yield strengths of
main steel reinforcement bars and ties are 420 MPa and 300 MPa, respectively. The section
details of beams and columns are given in Tables 1 and 2, and the thickness of the slab is
200 mm. The ratio of vertical boundary reinforcement area to gross concrete area of the wall
boundary ðρ0 Þ is 1.35%, whereas the ratio of vertical web reinforcement area to gross concrete
6.0 m
6.0 m

5.0 m
6.0 m
6.0 m

Y
6.0 m 6.0 m 6.0 m 6.0 m 6.0 m 6.0 m

X (a) (b)

Figure 1. Plan view of: (a) Base-isolated Moment Resisting Frame (BI-MRF) building; (b) Base-isolated
Shear Wall-Frame (BI-SWF) building.

Table 1. Beam section size and reinforcement details of BI-MRF and BI-SWF buildings.
Longitudinal reinforcement
Buildings Story Size (mm2) Top Bottom Shear reinforcement*
BI-MRF 1–9 500 × 550 4 No. 29 4 No. 25 4 legs at 120 mm
10 450 × 500 3 No. 22 3 No. 22 3 legs at 120 mm
BI-SWF 1–9 500 × 550 4 No. 29 4 No. 25 4 legs at 120 mm
10 450 × 500 3 No. 22 3 No. 22 3 legs at 120 mm
*No. 10 bar was used as shear reinforcement.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 5

Table 2. Column section size and reinforcement details of BI-MRF and BI-SWF buildings.
Buildings Location Size (mm2) Longitudinal reinforcement Shear reinforcement*
BI-MRF Int. 950 × 950 16 No. 32 4 legs at 100 mm
Ext. 800 × 800 12 No. 32 3 legs at 100 mm
BI-SWF Int. 850 × 850 12 No. 32 4 legs at 100 mm
Ext. 700 × 700 8 No. 32 3 legs at 100 mm
*No. 10 bar was used as shear reinforcement.

Table 3. Characteristics of the isolation system.

BI-MRF BI-SWF
DE MCER DE MCER
Effective period (s) 2.74 3.19 2.74 3.19
Effective damping (%) 30.8 22.5 31.1 22.7
Isolator displacement (mm) 210 407.8 210 408.4
Total isolator displacement (mm) 239 466.7 239 466.7

area of the web ðρ00 Þ is 0.52%. The volumetric ratio of the transverse reinforcement ðρt Þ is 0.4%
and the ratio of volume of transverse confining steel to volume of confined concrete core ðρs Þ
is 1.6%. The wall has a confinement region length ðLcc Þ of 600 mm at both the ends. The dead
load consists of member self-weight, and 7.8 kN/m and 6.9 kN/m loads due to partitions and
external cladding on the base beams and upper floor beams, respectively. Live loads on the
floor and roof slabs were assumed to be 4.8 kPa and 1.0 kPa, respectively. The total seismic
weights (W) of the BI-MRF and BI-SWF buildings were calculated to be 35,625 kN and 34,856
kN, respectively. The design base shear forces were computed to be 0.119W and 0.121W for
the BI-MRF and BI-SWF buildings, where the response modification factor RI ¼ 2 was used.
A lead rubber bearing (LRB) isolation system that was designed following the guide-
lines of ASCE 7–10 is used for both the buildings. The buildings are isolated using 12
bearings placed under each column and wall. The shear modulus of rubber and yield stress
of lead in the design of LRB are taken as 0.5 MPa and 10 MPa, respectively. Identical
900 mm diameter circular bearings are used for both the buildings, with a lead core of 150
and 151 mm for BI-MRF and BI-SWF buildings, respectively. Each bearing of BI-MRF
(BI-SWF) building consists of forty-two (forty-one) 10 mm thick rubber layers alternating
with 2 mm thick steel shims. The characteristics of the isolation system for both the
buildings under DE and MCER-levels are listed in Table 3.

3. Numerical Modeling
Three-dimensional finite element modeling of the BI-MRF and BI-SWF buildings was
carried out using OpenSees [OpenSees, 2013]. In order to obtain a balance between
computational efficiency and numerical stability, a combination of force-based and
displacement-based fiber beam-column elements was used. Beams and columns were
modeled using force-based, Euler-Bernoulli fiber beam-column elements with five
integration points, which account for the spread of inelasticity along the length of
the element. Shear walls were modeled using displacement-based fiber beam-column
elements with five integration points. Five displacement-based fiber beam-column
6 S. BHAGAT ET AL.

Force
Force
k2
FY
kd 0.01kv
k1

DY Displacement Displacement
kv
FY = yield force, DY = yield displacement kv = compressional stiffness
k1 = initial stiffness, k2 = post-elastic stiffness
kd = effective stiffness

(a) (b)

Figure 2. Force-deformation behavior of isolators: (a) lateral; (b) vertical.

elements were used to model the walls of the first floor, whereas, one displacement-
based fiber beam-column element was used to model the walls on the other floors, as
nonlinearities are concentrated mainly in the first-story in the case of shear walls.
Flexure-shear interaction is not accounted for in the model for shear walls. A section
discretized into unconfined concrete fibers, confined concrete fibers, and steel fibers is
located at each integration point in the element. Uniaxial material models with a
nonlinear constitutive relationship were assigned to the fibers. For concrete,
Concrete02 material model was used, where the modified Kent and Park model
[Park et al., 1982] is used in compression, an initial linear elastic branch together
with a linear softening branch up to zero stress is used in tension, and the model of
Yassin [Yassin, 1994] is used to account for concrete damage and hysteresis. For
reinforcing steel, Steel02 material model, which is based on the constitutive model of
Menegotto and Pinto [Menegotto and Pinto, 1973], was used with a strain hardening
ratio of 1%. The geometric nonlinearity was taken into account by the use of P-Delta
Transformation in OpenSees for the columns and walls. Rigid diaphragms were used
for the floors to enforce the rigid in-plane stiffness. In this study, 1% tangent stiffness-
proportional damping was applied to the superstructure, where the damping coefficient
was calculated from the frequency of base-isolated building with the post-elastic
stiffness of the isolation system, which is based on the study of Pant et al. [2013].
Elastomeric bearing elements were used to model the lead rubber bearings which has a
bilinear force-deformation behavior in the lateral direction (see Figure 2(a)). For each bearing
element the initial stiffness k1 ¼ 11; 797kN=mð11; 672kN=mÞ; yield force FY ¼ 235:9kN
ð233:4kNÞ; and ratio of post-elastic stiffness to initial stiffnessα ¼ k2 =k1 ¼ 0:093 (0.092) for
BI-MRF (BI-SWF) building. The compressional stiffness of the isolators kv ¼ 1:42 
106 kN=m ð1:39  106 kN=mÞ for BI-MRF (BI-SWF) buildings and 0:01kv was used to
model the tension behavior of isolators in the vertical direction (Figure 2(b)).

4. Selection and Scaling of Ground Motions

Two sets of NF ground motions, viz., 14 records with fling-step characteristics and 14 records
with forward-directivity characteristics are considered in this study. These NF ground motions
were selected from Kalkan and Kunnath [2006] and are shown in Tables 4 and 5. Kalkan and
Table 4. Near-fault fling-step ground motions scaled to represent MCER.
GM PGA Fling
no. Year Event Mw Station Mech.1 Scale factor (g) PGV (cm/s) PGD (cm) TP ðsÞ AP ðcm=sÞ (cm)
1 1999 Chi-Chi 7.6 TCU074 TH 0.72 0.42 49.83 139.80 13.45 14.93 126.29
2 1999 Chi-Chi 7.6 TCU074 TH 1.33 0.49 63.57 205.82 12.00 25.65 205.82
3 1999 Chi-Chi 7.6 TCU129 TH 1.57 1.54 104.97 197.89 2.75 73.48 128.66
4 1999 Kocaeli 7.4 Izmit SS 3.50 0.82 170.98 334.12 9.00 52.01 297.76
5 1999 Kocaeli 7.4 Sakarya SS 3.12 1.30 255.86 642.87 4.73 193.61 583.00
6 1999 Chi-Chi 7.6 TCU089 TH 2.53 0.86 112.56 491.17 9.99 73.21 465.62
7 1999 Chi-Chi 7.6 TCU049 TH 3.14 0.84 171.79 382.06 3.75 85.92 205.12
8 1999 Chi-Chi 7.6 TCU067 TH 1.21 0.58 113.79 218.69 2.25 99.42 142.39
9 1999 Chi-Chi 7.6 TCU076 TH 2.77 0.93 182.94 282.04 2.00 138.65 176.52
10 1999 Chi-Chi 7.6 TCU072 TH 1.21 0.44 80.51 296.00 9.50 48.14 291.16
11 1999 Chi-Chi 7.6 TCU079 TH 1.21 0.68 82.12 200.44 18.00 16.55 189.60
12 1999 Chi-Chi 7.6 TCU078 TH 1.93 0.83 80.83 233.98 8.90 37.14 210.53
13 1999 Chi-Chi 7.6 TCU082 TH 3.02 0.65 152.31 430.75 3.95 47.43 119.30
14 1999 Chi-Chi 7.6 TCU071 TH 1.57 0.98 124.08 382.88 3.33 88.8 298.48
PGA: Peak ground acceleration; PGV: Peak ground velocity; PGD: Peak ground displacement; Mech1: Mechanism of fault; TH-thrust; SS-strike slip; TP : Velocity pulse period; AP : Velocity pulse
amplitude.

: EW component;  : NS component.
JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
7
 8
S. BHAGAT ET AL.

Table 5. Near-fault forward-directivity ground motions scaled to represent MCER.

GM
no. Year Event Mw Station Mech.1 Scale factor PGA (g) PGV (cm/s) PGD (cm) TP ðsÞ AP ðcm=sÞ
1 1979 Imperial-Valley 6.5 El Centro Diff. Array SS 2.25 0.79 160.39 103.21 5.39 160.27
2 1979 Imperial-Valley 6.5 El Centro Imp. Co. Cent. SS 2.38 0.56 163.51 93.71 4.24 163.74
3 1999 Kocaeli 7.4 Duzce SS 2.38 0.74 139.91 104.91 5.14 140.06
4 1989 Loma Prieta 7.0 Gilroy STA #2 OB 2.38 0.87 78.23 17.00 1.75 78.35
5 1989 Loma Prieta 7.0 Gilroy STA #3 OB 2.50 0.92 111.77 48.38 2.56 111.70
6 1994 Northridge 6.7 Rinaldi Rec. Stn. TH 0.63 0.53 109.37 30.76 1.48 109.42
7 1994 Northridge 6.7 Slymar Converter Sta East TH 1.01 0.83 117.60 34.48 3.19 117.52
8 1979 Imperial-Valley 6.5 El Centro Array #7 SS 1.13 0.52 127.52 55.27 4.26 127.59
9 1994 Northridge 6.7 Jensen Filt. Plant TH 1.13 0.48 119.36 48.66 3.53 119.70
10 1994 Northridge 6.7 Newhall LA Fire Stn. TH 1.38 0.80 102.82 25.85 2.69 104.07
11 1994 Northridge 6.7 Sylmar Olive View Hospital TH 1.00 0.84 129.48 31.95 2.21 130.38
12 2004 Parkfield 6.4 Cholame 1E SS 1.75 0.83 92.00 22.48 1.32 93.04
13 1992 Cape Mendocino 7.1 Petrolia, General Store TH 0.88 0.58 78.55 25.39 3.00 78.98
14 1992 Erzincan 6.7 Erzincan SS 1.50 0.74 96.51 32.93 4.15 96.54
PGA: Peak ground acceleration; PGV: Peak ground velocity; PGD: Peak ground displacement; Mech1: Mechanism of fault; TH-thrust; SS-strike slip; OB-oblique; TP : Velocity pulse period;
AP : Velocity pulse amplitude.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 9

5 5
ASCE 7-10 MCER ASCE 7-10 MCE R
Scaled mean spectrum 4 Scaled mean spectrum
4

3 3

Sa(g)
Sa(g)

2 2
1.0 s 1.0 s
1 1 4.0 s
4.0 s

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Period (s) Period (s)
(a) (b)

Figure 3. Comparison of 5% damped mean acceleration response spectrum of the scaled ground
motions MCER-level code spectrum: (a) fling-step ground motions; (b) forward-directivity ground
motions.

Kunnath [2006] contains two sets with 25 records each, for NF ground motions with fling-step
and forward-directivity characteristics, of which only 14 NF ground motions in each set are
selected for the study. It is important to note that the 1999 Chi-Chi ground motion records might
have been affected by the coupling between forward directivity and fling effects as discussed in
previous studies [see Abrahamson, 2000; Mavroeidis and Papageorgiou, 2003]. The selected
records were from earthquakes with magnitude Mw > 6:0 and site class of recording station
either B, C, or D. Selected ground motions were scaled to match the MCER-level target
acceleration spectrum such that the mean 5% damped acceleration response spectrum evaluated
over all the ground motions, closely follows the target spectrum in the period range of 1.0–4.0 s
(Figure 3) which includes the recommended range 0:5TD 1:25TM [ASCE, 2010] for base-
isolated buildings. The scaling was accomplished using a computer program based on the
algorithm proposed by Reyes and Kalkan [2012]. Here, TD andTM are the effective periods of
the isolation system at the DE-level and MCER-level, respectively. The acceleration time histories
of records scaled to represent the MCER-level are multiplied by 2/3 to obtain the records for the
DE-level.

5. Results of Numerical Analysis

Nonlinear response history analysis (NLRHA) of the BI-MRF and BI-SWF buildings
was carried out for DE-level and MCER-level NF ground motions with fling-step and
forward-directivity characteristics and the superstructure response is discussed. Next,
the effects of the removal of the dominant pulse from the NF ground motion record,
on the structural performance of the base-isolated buildings are investigated. Finally
artificial pulses are generated, and the influence of ratio of pulse period to the
fundamental period of the building on the response of the isolation system and the
superstructure is evaluated. In this study, the results discussed correspond to the
response in the transverse direction only, as the analysis was carried out by using
only one component of NF ground motion along the transverse direction.
The superstructure response is discussed in terms of the mean values of peak inter-story
drift ratio (IDR), peak normalized story shear force, peak absolute floor acceleration, and
10 S. BHAGAT ET AL.

residual IDR. The story shear was normalized by the total seismic weight W of the buildings.
In this study, peak IDR in the ranges of 0.2–0.5%, 0.5–1.5%, and 1.5–3% correspond to
damage of drift-sensitive non-structural components, moderate structural damage and
severe structural damage, respectively [Elnashai and Di Sarno, 2008].

5.1. Response of the BI-MRF and BI-SWF Buildings under DE-level and MCER-level
NF Ground Motions with Fling-Step and Forward-Directivity Characteristics
The mean values of superstructure response for the BI-MRF and BI-SWF buildings under
DE-level and MCER-level NF ground motions with fling-step and forward-directivity
characteristics are shown in Figures 4 and 5.
It can be seen from Figure. 4(a), 4(e), 5(a) and 5(e) that the IDR is nearly uniform along
the height for BI-SWF building for both sets of ground motions under DE-level and
MCER-level excitation. The maximum values of peak IDR for the BI-MRF and BI-SWF
buildings under MCER-level ground motions with fling-step (forward-directivity) char-
acteristics are 1.77% (1.82%) and 1.16% (1.32%), respectively, which indicates that NF
ground motions with fling-step characteristics result in slightly smaller IDR compared to
that of NF ground motions with forward-directivity characteristics. The maximum values
of peak IDR for the BI-SWF building under MCER-level ground motions are less than
1.5% for both sets of NF ground motion which indicate that there is moderate structural
damage, while for the BI-MRF building this ratio exceeds 1.5% indicating severe structural
damage in the superstructure.
The shear force distribution along the building height have the same trend for both sets
of ground motion, with the demands of the BI-SWF building being slightly larger than
that of the BI-MRF building (Figure. 4(b), 4(f), 5(b) and 5(f)). Similar to IDR, the peak

Roof Roof Roof Roof

BI-MRF
8F BI-SWF 8F 8F 8F
Floor level

Floor level

Floor level

Floor level

6F 6F 6F 6F

4F 4F 4F 4F

2F 2F 2F 2F

Base Base Base Base

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Inter-story drift ratio (%) Normalized story shear force Floor acceleration (g) Residual inter-story drift ratio (%)
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Roof Roof Roof Roof

8F 8F 8F 8F
Floor level

Floor level

Floor level

Floor level

6F 6F 6F 6F

4F 4F 4F 4F

2F 2F 2F 2F

Base Base Base Base

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Inter-story drift ratio (%) Normalized story shear force Floor acceleration (g) Residual inter-story drift ratio (%)
(e) (f) (g) (h)

Figure 4. Mean values of superstructure peak response of BI-MRF and BI-SWF buildings under near-fault
ground motions with fling-step characteristics: (a)–(d) DE-level; (e)–(h) MCER-level.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 11

Roof Roof Roof Roof

BI-MRF
8F BI-SWF 8F 8F 8F
Floor level

Floor level

Floor level

Floor level
6F 6F 6F 6F

4F 4F 4F 4F

2F 2F 2F 2F

Base Base Base Base

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Inter-story drift ratio (%) Normalized story shear force Floor acceleration (g) Residual inter-story drift ratio (%)
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Roof Roof Roof Roof

8F 8F 8F 8F
Floor level

Floor level

Floor level

Floor level
6F 6F 6F 6F

4F 4F 4F 4F

2F 2F 2F 2F

Base Base Base Base

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Inter-story drift ratio (%) Normalized story shear force Floor acceleration (g) Residual inter-story drift ratio (%)
(e) (f) (g) (h)

Figure 5. Mean values of superstructure peak response of BI-MRF and BI-SWF buildings under near-fault
ground motions with forward-directivity characteristics: (a)–(d) DE-level; (e)–(h) MCER-level.

normalized story shear force is larger for NF ground motions with forward-directivity
characteristics, compared to that of NF ground motions with fling-step characteristics.
The peak absolute floor accelerations under DE-level and MCER-level NF ground
motions with fling-step and forward-directivity characteristics are comparatively smaller
in the BI-SWF building at mid-height levels than that of the BI-MRF building, while it is
higher at the lower and upper floor levels (Figure. 4(c), 4(g), 5(c) and 5(g)).
BI-MRF and BI-SWF buildings have very small residual IDR under DE-level NF
ground motions with fling-step and forward-directivity characteristics (Figure 4(d) and
5(d)). However, under MCER-level NF ground motions with fling-step characteristics, the
BI-MRF building has a maximum residual IDR of 0.19% (Figure 4(h)).

5.2. Effects of Removal of the Dominant Pulse from NF Ground Motions on the
Structural Performance of the BI-MRF and BI-SWF Buildings
To further study the response of the buildings under NF ground motions with and
without fling-step and forward-directivity characteristics, two ground motion records
were selected and modified to remove the dominant pulse. Peak IDR and peak floor
acceleration were then obtained from NLRHA using the MCER-level NF ground motions.
For NF ground motions with forward-directivity characteristics, a wavelet analysis is
carried out using the method proposed by Baker [2007] and the largest velocity pulse is
extracted. For NF ground motions with fling-step characteristics, the wavelet analysis
proposed by Baker [2007] is not applicable, since the residual displacements cannot be
detected using this method. Hence, for NF ground motions with fling-step characteristics
first the fling of the NF ground motion is represented using a ramp function d(t) to fit the
displacement time-history
12 S. BHAGAT ET AL.

  
Dp π Tp Dp
dðtÞ ¼ sin t  t1  þ ; t1  t  T p þ t 1 ; (1)
2 Tp 2 2

where Dp is the maximum displacement amplitude of the pulse, Tp is the duration of the
pulse, and t1 is the arrival time [Burks and Baker, 2016]. Next the velocity pulse is
computed using the extracted fling. The NF ground motion records without fling-step
and forward-directivity characteristics are then obtained by subtracting the extracted
velocity pulses from the original velocity time-history records.
In the present study the Sakarya record for NF ground motion with fling-step char-
acteristics (GM #5, Table 4) and El Centro Diff Array record for NF ground motion with
forward-directivity characteristics (GM #1, Table 5) are used. The velocity pulse period
and pulse amplitude of the Sakarya record are 4.73 s and 193.61 cm/s, and for El Centro
Diff Array record are 5.39 s and 160.27 cm/s. These records are chosen as they provide
maximum response in the buildings and hence the influence of the pulse can be observed.
The displacement time-history, fling-step, velocity time-history, extracted velocity pulse,
and velocity time-history after extracting the velocity pulse for the Sakarya ground motion
record are shown in Figure 6. The displacement time-history, velocity time-history,
extracted velocity pulse, and velocity time-history after extracting the velocity pulse for
the El Centro Diff Array ground motion record are shown in Figure 7.
The peak IDR and peak floor accelerations of the BI-MRF and BI-SWF buildings under
MCER-level NF ground motions with and without the fling-step and forward-directivity
characteristics are shown in Figure 8. The removal of the dominant pulse from both the
ground motion records cause a significant reduction in the IDR in both the buildings
(Figure. 8(a), (c), (e) and (g)). In the BI-MRF (BI-SWF) building a reduction of IDR from
Displacement (cm)

800 300
Velocity (cm/s)

Scaled record
600 200 Velocity pulse

400 100 T = 4.73 s, A = 193.61 cm/s

T
D 0
Scaled record
200
t Fling step
-100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) (b)
300
Velocity (cm/s)

200 Residual record

100
0
-100
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (s)
(c)

Figure 6. The Sakarya NF ground motion record with fling-step characteristics: (a) scaled displacement
time-history and fling-step; (b) scaled velocity time-history and the computed velocity pulse based on
the fling-step; (c) velocity time-history after extracting the velocity pulse.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 13

150

Displacement (cm)
200

Velocity (cm/s)
100 Scaled record Scaled record
100 Velocity pulse
50
0
0
Tp = 5.39 s, Ap = 160.27 cm/s
-50 -100
-100 -200
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) (b)
Velocity (cm/s) 200
Residual record
100

-100

-200
0 10 20 30 40
Time (s)
(c)

Figure 7. The El Centro Diff Array NF ground motion record with forward-directivity characteristics:
(a) scaled displacement time-history; (b) scaled velocity time-history and extracted pulse; (c) velocity
time-history after extracting the velocity pulse.

Roof with fling Roof Roof Roof

without fling BI-MRF BI-SWF
BI-SWF
8F BI-MRF 8F 8F 8F
Floor level

Floor level

Floor level

Floor level

6F 6F 6F 6F

4F 4F 4F 4F

2F 2F 2F 2F

Base Base Base Base

0 1 2 3 4 5 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 0 1 2 3 4 5 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75
Inter-story drift ratio (%) Floor acceleration (g) Inter-story drift ratio (%) Floor acceleration (g)
(a) (b) (c) (d)
with directivity
Roof without directivity Roof Roof Roof
BI-MRF BI-SWF BI-SWF
8F BI-MRF 8F 8F 8F
Floor level

Floor level

Floor level

Floor level

6F 6F 6F 6F

4F 4F 4F 4F

2F 2F 2F 2F

Base Base Base Base

0 1 2 3 4 5 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 0 1 2 3 4 5 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75
Inter-story drift ratio (%) Floor acceleration (g) Inter-story drift ratio (%) Floor acceleration (g)
(e) (f) (g) (h)

Figure 8. Peak response of BI-MRF and BI-SWF buildings under MCER-level ground motions with and
without fling-step and forward-directivity characteristics: (a)–(d) Sakarya record; (e)–(h) El Centro Diff
Array record.

4.93% (2.40%) to 1.40% (0.92%) is observed due to the removal of fling-step effect, while
the removal of forward-directivity effect resulted in a reduction from 4.7% (2.9%) to
1.0% (0.65%). The peak floor accelerations (Figure. 8(b), (d), (f) and (h)) are reduced at
14 S. BHAGAT ET AL.

the mid-story levels especially for the BI-SWF building after the removal of pulses from
both the NF ground motions (Figure. 8(d) and (h)), however, the reduction is not as
significant as the reduction of IDR.

5.3. Correlation of Peak Isolator Displacement and Peak Inter-Story Drift Ratio
with the Pulse Parameters of NF Ground Motions
The pulse period and pulse amplitude are two major parameters of ground motion records
having a velocity pulse. The correlation of the building response with these pulse para-
meters provides an insight on how the response indicators are affected by the velocity
pulse present in NF ground motion records. Figure 9 shows the response of the BI-MRF
and BI-SWF buildings, plotted against the ratio of the pulse period TP to the fundamental
period of the superstructure T1 computed based on post-elastic stiffness of the isolation
system, and the velocity pulse amplitude AP ; under MCER-level excitation. For the BI-
MRF and BI-SWF buildings, T1 ¼ 4:30sand4:34s; respectively. The TP =T1 ratio for NF
ground motions with fling-step is in the range of 0–4.5, while for NF ground motions with
forward-directivity the range is 0–1.5. It can be seen that the highest values of isolator
displacement and IDR which is the peak value of all floors for both the sets of NF ground
motions, correspond to TP =T1 close to 1.0 and when AP is large. In order to further
understand the peak isolator and peak superstructure response with respect to the pulse
period, in the next section the response of the buildings subjected to artificial pulses is
studied.

5.4. Influence of Artificial (Closed-Form) Pulses on Response of the Buildings

The buildings are further analyzed to investigate the effects of the TP =T1 ratio, on the
isolator and superstructure response, using closed-form pulses representative of fling-step
and forward-directivity characteristics. The acceleration time-history of the two sinusoidal
pulse models were studied by Sasani and Bertero [2000] and also used by Kalkan and
Kunnath [2006], and are given by,
Pulse Type A (Fling-step)
 
2π
aðtÞ ¼ A1 sin ðt  t1 Þ (2)
Tp
Pulse Type B (Forward-directivity)
  
2π t < t < ðt1 þ 0:5Tp Þ
aðtÞ ¼ 0:5A1 sin ðt  t1 Þ for 1 (3)
Tp ðt 1 þ Tp Þ < t < ðt1 þ 1:5Tp Þ

 
2π
aðtÞ ¼ A1 sin ðt  t1 Þ forðt1 þ 0:5Tp Þ < t < ðt1 þ Tp Þ; (4)
Tp
where in this study A1 ¼ 1:0; TP is the period of the sine-pulse, and t1 is the pulse arrival
time, and are shown schematically in Figure 10. Pulse periods corresponding to TP =T1 ¼
0:2to3:0 are considered. The acceleration pulse amplitude was set to 0.15g, after checking
the peak values of isolator displacement and base shear for different acceleration pulse
amplitudes. When NLRHA was carried out with acceleration pulse amplitudes larger than
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 15

Figure 9. Correlation of peak response of BI-MRF and BI-SWF buildings with the pulse parameters of
the MCER-level NF ground motions. Isolator displacement for NF ground motions (a) with fling-step, (b)
with forward-directivity. Inter-story drift ratio for NF ground motions (c) with fling-step, (d) with
forward-directivity. Note: The inter-story drift ratio is the peak value of all floors.

0.15g the isolator displacements and base shear demands were significantly larger than the
design values, while an acceleration pulse amplitude of 0.15g yielded an isolator displace-
ment and base shear compatible with the design values.
The peak response indicators, viz., isolator displacement, IDR which is the peak value
of all floors and base shear of the BI-MRF and BI-SWF buildings from NLRHA under
Pulse Types A and B are shown in Figure 11. In general, the peak response indicators are
larger for Pulse Type A (fling-step) motion than for Pulse Type B (forward-directivity)
motion. For Pulse Type A, the isolator displacement and base shear exhibit a maximum
when TP =T1 ¼ 1:0 for both BI-MRF and BI-SWF buildings but the IDR has a maximum
when TP =T1 ¼ 1:0 only for the BI-MRF building. For Pulse Type B, the response
indicators increase until about TP =T1 ¼ 1:0 and then remains nearly constant.
16 S. BHAGAT ET AL.

1 1 1.5 T
Acceleration pulse
Acceleration

ag/agmax

ag/agmax
0.5
0 0

-1 T -1
pulse

1 1 Velocity
Velocity

vg/vgmax
vg/vgmax

0 -1

1 1
Displacement
Displacement

ug/ugmax
ug/ugmax

0 0
Time Time
(a) (b)

Figure 10. Normalized closed form pulses: (a) Pulse A (fling-step); (b) Pulse B (forward-directivity),
[Kalkan and Kunnath [2006]].

6. Conclusions
In this study, the influence of NF ground motions with fling-step and forward-directivity
characteristics on the seismic response of 10-story base-isolated buildings with and with-
out shear walls is investigated. In addition, the effect of pulse parameters of NF ground
motions and artificial pulses on the behavior of the isolation system and the superstructure
is evaluated. The major conclusions drawn from this study are as follows:

(1) NF ground motions with fling-step and forward-directivity characteristics results in

larger values of peak inter-story drift ratio for the BI-MRF building compared to the
BI-SWF building under DE-level and MCER-level excitations, indicating the benefits
of using shear walls in base-isolated buildings, at NF sites. However, on comparing
the response of the superstructure under NF ground motions with fling-step and
forward-directivity characteristics, a slightly smaller response in terms of inter-story
drift ratio, normalized story shear, and floor acceleration are observed in both the BI-
MRF and BI-SWF buildings, for NF ground motions with fling-step characteristics.
Residual inter-story drift ratio is negligible for all the cases except for the BI-MRF
building under MCER-level NF ground motions with fling-step characteristics.
(2) The removal of the dominant pulse from Sakarya record and El Centro Diff Array
record results in a significant reduction in the IDR of both buildings and the peak
floor accelerations are reduced at the mid-story levels, especially for the BI-SWF
buildings. This indicates that the presence of pulses in NF ground motion records
can produce very large demands on base-isolated buildings.
(3) The effect of pulse period and pulse amplitude on the response of the BI-MRF and BI-
SWF buildings indicate that, the highest values of isolator displacement and IDR which
is the peak value of all floors, correspond to TP =T1 close to 1.0 and when AP is large.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 17

Isolator displacement (mm)

Isolator displacement (mm)

600 600
BI-MRF BI-SWF
450 450

300 300

150 Pulse A 150

Pulse B
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
TP/T1 TP/T1
(a) (b)

Inter-story drift ratio (%)

Inter-story drift ratio (%)

3 3
BI-MRF BI-SWF

2 2

1 1

0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
TP/T1 TP/T1
(c) (d)
Normalized base shear
Normalized base shear

0.3 0.3
BI-MRF BI-SWF

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
TP/T1 TP/T1
(e) (f)

Figure 11. Peak response indicators of BI-MRF and BI-SWF buildings obtained from nonlinear response
history analysis using closed form pulses: (a), (b) isolator displacement; (c), (d) inter-story drift ratio;
(e), (f) normalized base shear. Note: The inter-story drift ratio is the peak value of all floors.

(4) When artificial pulses are considered, for the same acceleration pulse amplitude, the
peak response indicators are larger for Pulse Type A (fling-step) motion than for
Pulse Type B (forward-directivity) motion. For Pulse Type A, nearly all response
indicators exhibit a maximum value when TP =T1 ¼ 1:0 but for Pulse Type B, the
response indicators increase until about TP =T1 ¼ 1:0 and then remain nearly
constant.

Acknowledgments
The first author gratefully acknowledges a Monbukagakusho (Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science, and Technology, Japan) scholarship for graduate students. The authors are
grateful to the anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions which have improved the
manuscript.
18 S. BHAGAT ET AL.

References
Abrahamson, N. A. [2000] “Near-fault ground motions from the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake,”
Proceedings of US–Japan Workshop on the Effects of Near-Field Earthquake Shaking, San
Francisco, March 20-21, pp.11–13.
ACI. [2011]. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-11). American Concrete
Institute (ACI);Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
Alavi, B. and Krawinkler, H. [2004]. “Behavior of moment-resisting frame structures subjected to
near-fault ground motions,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 33(6), 687–706.
ASCE. [2010]. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-10). American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE); Reston, VA, USA.
Baker, J. W. [2007]. “Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analy-
sis,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 97(5), 1486–1501.
Beiraghi, H., Kheyroddin, A. and Kafi, M. A. [2016]. “Forward directivity near-fault and far-fault
ground motion effects on the behavior of reinforced concrete wall tall buildings with one and
more plastic hinges,” The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 25, 519–539.
Bhagat, S., and Wijeyewickrema, A. C. [2017]. “Seismic response evaluation of base-isolated
reinforced concrete buildings under bidirectional excitation,” Earthquake Engineering and
Engineering Vibration 16(2), 365–382.
Bhagat, S., and Wijeyewickrema, A. C. [2018]. “Seismic collapse probability considering pounding
and financial loss estimation of base-isolated reinforced concrete buildings,” Journal of
Earthquake and Tsunami 12(3), 1850008.
Bhandari, M., Bharti, S. D., Shrimali, M. K., and Datta, T. K. [2018]. “The numerical study of base-
isolated buildings under near-field and far-field earthquakes,” Journal Of Earthquake Engineering
22(6), 989–1007.
Bolt, B. A. and Abrahamson, N. A. [2003] “Estimation of strong seismic ground motions”, in
International Handbook of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology, eds. W. H. K.
Lee, H. Kanamori, P. C. Jennings and C. Kisslinger (San Diego, CA: Academic Press). pp. 983–
1001. (Part B)
Boore, D. M. and Bommer, J. J. [2005]. “Processing of strong-motion accelerograms: needs, options
and consequences,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25(2), 93–115.
Burks, L. S. and Baker, J. W. [2016]. “A predictive model for fling-step in near-fault ground
motions based on recordings and simulations,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 80,
119–126.
Calugaru, V. and Panagiotou, M. [2014]. “Seismic response of 20-story base-isolated and fixed-base
reinforced concrete structural wall buildings at a near-fault site,” Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 43(6), 927–948.
Chen, J., Liu, W., Peng, Y. and Li, J. [2007]. “Stochastic seismic response and reliability analysis of
base-isolated structures,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 11(6), 903–924.
Elnashai, A. S. and Di Sarno, L. [2008]. Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering, John Wiley &
Sons Ltd, Chichester, West Sussex.
Hall, J. F., Heaton, T. H., Halling, M. W. and Wald, D. J. [1995]. “Near-source ground motion and
its effects on flexible buildings,” Earthquake Spectra 11(4), 569–605.
ICC. [2012]. International Building Code. International Code Council (ICC); Country Club Hills, IL,
USA.
Jamnani, H. H., Karbassi, A. and Lestuzzi, P. [2013] “Fling-step effect on the seismic behaviour of
high-rise RC buildings during the Christchurch earthquake,” 2013 NZSEE Conference, 6 pages.
Jangid, R. S. [2007]. “Optimum lead-rubber isolation bearings for near-fault motions,” Engineering
Structures 29(10), 2503–2513.
Jangid, R. S. and Kelly, J. M. [2001]. “Base isolation for near fault motions,” Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 30(5), 691–707.
Kalkan, E. and Kunnath, S. K. [2006]. “Effects of fling step and forward directivity on seismic
response of buildings,” Earthquake Spectra 22(2), 367–390.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 19

Liossatou, E. and Fardis, M. N. [2016]. “Near-fault effects on residual displacements of RC

structures,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 45(9), 1391–1409.
Malhotra, P. K. [1999]. “Response of buildings to near-field pulse-like ground motions,” Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 28, 1309–1326.
Mavroeidis, G. P., Dong, G. and Papageorgiou, A. S. [2004]. “Near-fault ground motions, and the
response of elastic and inelastic single-degree-freedom (SDOF) systems,” Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 33(9), 1023–1049.
Mavroeidis, G. P. and Papageorgiou, A. S. [2003]. “A mathematical representation of near-fault
ground motions,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 93(3), 1099–1131.
Mazza, F. [2018]. “Seismic demand of base-isolated irregular structures subjected to pulse-type
earthquakes,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 108, 111–129.
Mazza, F. and Vulcano, A. [2009]. “Nonlinear response of RC framed buildings with isolation and
supplemental damping at the base subjected to near-fault earthquakes,” Journal of Earthquake
Engineering 13(5), 690–715.
Mazza, F. and Vulcano, A. [2012]. “Effects of near-fault ground motions on the nonlinear dynamic
response of base-isolated r.c. framed buildings,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
41(2), 211–232.
Menegotto, M. and Pinto, P. [1973] “Methods of analysis for cyclically loaded r/c frames including
changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior under combined normal force and bending,”
Symposium of Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structure Acted by Well Defined
Repeated Load, Lisbon, Portugal, 15–22.
Moniri, H. [2017] “Investigation of fling-step effect on mid-rise R/C buildings subjected to near
source strong motion,” Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Santiago, Chile, Jan. 9-13, paper no. 936.
OpenSees. [2013]. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, Computer Program,
University of California: Berkeley, California, USA. (Available from: http://opensees.berkeley.
edu (15 October 2013))
Pant, D. R. and Wijeyewickrema, A. C. [2013]. “Influence of near-fault ground motions on the
response of base-isolated reinforced concrete buildings considering seismic pounding,” Advances
in Structural Engineering 16(12), 1973–1988.
Pant, D. R. and Wijeyewickrema, A. C. [2014]. “Performance of base-isolated reinforced concrete
buildings under bidirectional seismic excitation considering pounding with retaining walls
including friction effects,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 43(10), 1521–
1541.
Pant, D. R., Wijeyewickrema, A. C. and ElGawady, M. A. [2013]. “Appropriate viscous damping for
nonlinear time-history analysis of base-isolated reinforced concrete buildings,” Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 42(15), 2321–2339.
Park, R., Priestley, M. J. N. and Gill, W. D. [1982]. “Ductility of square-confined concrete columns,”
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 108(4), 929–950.
Providakis, C. P. [2008]. “Pushover analysis of base-isolated steel-concrete composite structures
under near-fault excitations,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28(4), 293–304.
Reyes, J. C. and Kalkan, E. [2012]. “How many records should be used in an ASCE/SEI-7 ground
motion scaling procedure?,” Earthquake Spectra 28(3), 1223–1242.
Sasani, M. and Bertero, V. V. [2000] “Importance of severe pulse-type ground motions in perfor-
mance-based engineering: historical and critical review,” Proceedings of the 12th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 1302.
Shahi, S. K. and Baker, J. W. [2011]. “An empirically calibrated framework for including the effects
of near-fault directivity in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis,” Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America 101(2), 742–755.
Shahi, S. K. and Baker, J. W. [2014]. “An efficient algorithm to identify strong-velocity pulses in
multicomponent ground motions,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 104(5),
2456–2466.
20 S. BHAGAT ET AL.

Somerville, P. G., Smith, N. F., Graves, R. W. and Abrahamson, N. A. [1997]. “Modification of

empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration
effects of rupture directivity,” Seismological Research Letters 68(1), 199–222.
Vafaei, D. and Eskandari, R. [2015]. “Seismic response of mega buckling-restrained braces subjected
to fling-step and forward-directivity near-fault ground motions,” The Structural Design of Tall
and Special Buildings 24(9), 672–686.
Ventura, C. E., Archila, M., Bebamzadeh, A. and Liam Finn, W. D. [2011]. “Large coseismic
displacements and tall buildings,” The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 20(S1),
85–99.
Yang, S., Mavroeidis, G. P., Ucak, A. and Tsopelas, P. [2017]. “Effect of ground motion filtering on
the dynamic response of a seismically isolated bridge with and without fault crossing considera-
tions,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92, 183–191.
Yassin, M. H. M. [1994] Nonlinear analysis of prestressed concrete structures under monotonic and
cyclic loads, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.