Prevalent pulse influence of near-fault ground motions

on base-isolated steel structures

H. Naderpour1, S.R. Hoseini Vaez, G. Ghodrati Amiri

1
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Semnan University, Semnan, Iran
e-mail: naderpour@semnan.ac.ir
2
College of Civil Engineering
Iran University of Science and Technology

Abstract
Ground motions in near fault region are significantly affected by rupture directivity and slip direction
relative to the site and by the permanent ground displacement at the site resulting from tectonic
movement. These pulse-type motions are strongest at longer periods and they can place severe demands
on structures in the near-fault regions. In this study, it is aimed to evaluate the prevalent pulse effect of
near-fault ground motions on seismic responses of steel base-isolated structures. In order to evaluate the
seismic response of base-isolated structures, different detailed 3D nonlinear analytical models with
different characteristics are developed and analyzed under significant pulse-like near fault ground
motions. The parametric study is concentrated on base shear, accelerations and displacements of isolated
models. Also the comparison between hysteretic responses of models as a main criterion for energy
dissipation of system has been investigated and evaluated. The results indicated that base displacement
responses of base-isolated models under equivalent pulses almost completely match with base
displacement responses under the related full records of near fault ground motions.

1 Introduction

Recent earthquakes have demonstrated that ground motions close to causative earthquake faults can be
significantly different than those observed further away from the seismic source. The near fault zone is
typically assumed to be restricted to within a distance of about 15 km from the ruptured fault. In this zone,
ground motions at a particular site are significantly influenced by the rupture mechanism and slip direction
relative to the site and by the permanent ground displacement at the site resulting from tectonic
movement. Depending on the first two factors, ground motions in the near fault zone can exhibit the
dynamic consequences of forward directivity, neutral directivity, or backward directivity. Depending on
the last factor, ground motions close to the surface rupture may contain a significant permanent static
displacement, which is termed fling step. Forward directivity and fling effects have been identified by the
seismologists as the primary characteristics of near fault ground motions [1]. These characteristics of
ground motion near the fault of major earthquakes contain large displacement and velocity pulses, capable
of causing severe structural damage. Typically, motions with long period pulses can exhibit the dynamic
consequences of the fling step or forward directivity, the former depending on tectonic displacement in the
fault, and the latter depending on the rupture mechanism and slip direction relative to the site [2]. The
fling step motion normally generates permanent static displacement that occurs parallel to the strike of the
fault with strike slip earthquakes, and in the dip direction for dip slip events. On the other hand, the

1239
1240 P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2012-USD2012

forward directivity effect is characterized by a large pulse occurring at the beginning of the motion and
oriented in a direction perpendicular to the fault plane. Spite their varying characteristics, representations
of near fault pulse-type ground motions using one or more simplified pulses have been shown to be
adequate in predicting the dynamic response of structures [3-7]. Therefore, a complete understanding of
the salient features of simple pulses is of paramount importance for their application in structural design
procedures.
In response to the realization of the importance of considering pulse-type motions when predicting
structural performance. a number of studies have established predictive relationships for the period and
amplitude of the dominant pulses in the near fault forward directivity motions [4, 5, 8 and 9]. In the
meantime, significant work towards developing equivalent pulse models characterizing the special effects
of pulse-type motions have been carried out [4, 5, 7, 10, 11 and 12]. These studies included development
or equivalent pulse models for the dynamic performance analysis of elastic and inelastic single degree of
freedom system or multiple degree of freedom systems subjected to simple pulses.
Pulse-type motions can place severe demands on structures in the near fault region. Seismic base isolation
is an earthquake resistant design method that is based on decreasing the seismic demand instead of
increasing the seismic capacity. The estimation of seismic response of base-isolated structures for a
project site close to an active fault should account for special aspects of near fault ground motions [13].
This study compares seismic response of a typical base-isolated building under full record of near fault
ground motions versus their equivalent pulses to enhance the understanding of their unique impacts on
building. The parametric study is concentrated on base shear, accelerations and displacements of isolated
models. Also the comparison between hysteretic responses of models as a main criterion for energy
dissipation of system has been investigated and evaluated.

2 Structural models

Structural models prepared for analysis include 15-story buildings. The models consist of LRB (Lead
Rubber Bearing) (Figure 1). Nonlinear analytical modeling techniques [14, 15] were used for dynamic
analysis of structural models. The structural models were analyzed under 3 records of near fault ground
motions and their equivalent pulses. Three earthquake events selected as near source ground motions: the
1994 Northridge, the 1979 Coyote Lake and the 1979 Imperial Valley earthquakes (Figures 2, 3 and 4).
These records contain strong velocity and displacement pulses of relatively long periods which distinguish
them from typical far field earthquakes. In Figures 2 to 4 the equivalent pulses of all components of
mentioned near fault ground motion records have illustrated. The characteristics of both earthquakes and
the equivalent pulses are presented in Tables 1 and 2 respectively.

Figure 1: Typical plan

Following assumptions are made for the structural system under consideration:
DYNAMICS OF CIVIL STRUCTURES 1241

• The floors are assumed rigid in its own plane and the mass is supposed to be lumped at each floor
level.
• The columns are inextensible and weightless providing the lateral stiffness.
• The system is subjected to single horizontal component of the earthquake ground motion.
• The effects of soil–structure interaction are not taken into consideration.
Event Northridge-01 Coyote Lake Imperial Valley-06
Year 1994 1979 1979
Mw 6.69 5.74 6.53
Station LA Dam Gilroy Array #6 Agrarias
Closest to Fault Rupture (km) 5.92 3.11 0.65
PGA (g) 0.57 0.45 0.31
PGV (cm/sec) 77.1 51.54 53.79
PGD (cm) 20.11 7.1 14.85
Table 1: Characteristics of earthquakes used for analysis

Event Northridge-01 Coyote Lake Imperial Valley-06

fp (Hz) 0.58 0.99 0.54
t0 (sec.) 3.00 2.66 7.77
Stat point time (sec.) 2.01 2.02 6.29
End point time (sec.) 3.99 3.30 9.25
Table 2: Characteristics of equivalent velocity pulses

Figure 2: Time history components of full record and equivalent pulse. Records obtained from the 1994
Northridge earthquake NGA database.
1242 P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2012-USD2012

Figure 3: Time history components of full record and equivalent pulse. Records obtained from the 1979
Coyote Lake earthquake NGA database.

Figure 4: Time history components of full record and equivalent pulse. Records obtained from the 1979
Imperial Valley earthquake NGA database.
DYNAMICS OF CIVIL STRUCTURES 1243

2.1 Identifying the isolators design characteristics

The isolators are modeled by a bilinear model based on the three parameters: K1 , K 2 and Q [16]. Isolators
will have high initial stiffness, K1 , and after yielding they will have lower stiffness, K 2 . The initial
stiffness K1 is estimated from a hysteresis loop from lead rubber bearing tests or as a multiple of K 2 for
lead–plug bearings. The characteristic strength, Q, is estimated from the hysteresis loops for lead rubber
isolators. For lead–plug isolators, Q is given by the yield stress in the lead and the area of the lead. The
hysteretic damping of this bearing is due to the plastic deformation of the lead. A procedure to determine
the post-yield stiffness, K 2 , is shown below [17].
The effective stiffness, K eff , is defined as the secant slope of the peak values in a hysteresis loop, and is
given as
Q
K eff = K 2 + ; D ≥ Dy (1)
D
The effective horizontal stiffness of the structure for a specified period is given by
2
W  2π 
K eff =   (2)
g  T 
D y is the yield displacement, which is given by

Q
Dy = (3)
K1 − K 2
Which D is final displacement or maximum design displacement in a horizontal direction for bearing, and
it is given by
 g C
D= 2 v T (4)
 4π  B
In which T is target design period of the structure; C V is seismic design coefficient and B is damping
coefficient corresponding to the effective damping ratio.
Effective damping ξ eff is given by
1 ED
ξeff = (5)
4π ESD
Where E SD is the energy stored.
1
E SD = K eff D 2 (6)
2
E D = 2πξeff K eff D 2 (7)
In which E D is energy dissipated in one cycle which is equal to the area of the hysteresis loop. The area of
the hysteresis loop, E D , is given as
E D = 4Q ( D − D y ) (8)

ED
Q= (9)
4Q ( D − D y )
1244 P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2012-USD2012

From equation 9 it is clear that Q is dependent upon D y , and D y in equation 3 is dependent on Q. Initially
either Q or D y should be assumed as zero and then final values should be calculated by iterative
procedure. The convergence procedures of modal parameters are presented in Table 3.
TD (sec.) 2 2 2
DD (m) 0.24874 0.24874 0.24874
Keff (ton/m) 9749.04 9749.04 9749.04
WD (ton) 378.81 378.81 378.81
Q (ton) 380.73 387.95 388.12
K2 (ton/m) 8218.44 8189.4 8188.73
K1 (ton/m) 82184.4 81894 81887.3
Dy (m) 0.00463 0.00474 0.00474
Q (ton) 387.95 388.12 388.12
Table 3: Convergence Procedures of Modal Parameters

3 Analytical results

In this section the analytical results are presented and evaluated. Time variation of base displacement at
center of mass for each model is illustrated for investigating the effect of large displacement pulses in the
records of near fault ground motions. Since reduction of acceleration in superstructure and energy
dissipation capability of system are two principle and substantial parameters in isolation systems, top floor
acceleration against time and hysteretic response of isolation system are shown. Figures 5 to 7 illustrate
dynamic responses of the Structural models calculated from 1994 Northridge earthquake record (LA Dam
station), 1979 Coyote Lake earthquake record (Gilroy Array #6 station), 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake
record (Agrarias), and their main pulses. Although the main pulses lasts only about 1.98s for Northridge
earthquake record, 1.28 for Coyote Lake earthquake record and 2.96 for Imperial Valley earthquake record
compared to the approximately 25s strong motion time histories; the dynamic responses of the structural
models under the equivalent pulses match over 90% of the dynamic responses of the structural models
under the related full records. Hence, the prominent pulses control the dynamic performance of structures
and the remainder of the ground motion can only make some contributions at certain frequencies in the
near fault ground motions.
From the Figures it can be declared that base displacement responses under equivalent pulses
almost completely match with base displacement responses under the related full records.
Maximum amounts of response for different models is summarized in Table 4; these responses include
maximum base shear to weight of superstructure, maximum base displacement at center of mass and
maximum acceleration. According to the table, it can be declared that the values of maximum base
displacement can be different up to 15.5% for the records and their equivalent pulses. Also the maximum
top floor acceleration can be differed up to 30.5% for records and their equivalent pulses.
DYNAMICS OF CIVIL STRUCTURES 1245

a) Time variation of top floor acceleration b) Time variation of base displacement

c) Hysteretic response of isolation system

Figure 5: Dynamic responses under 1994 Northridge earthquake

a) Time variation of top floor acceleration b) Time variation of base displacement

c) Hysteretic response of isolation system

Figure 6: Dynamic responses under 1979 Coyote Lake earthquake
1246 P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2012-USD2012

a) Time variation of top floor acceleration b) Time variation of base displacement

c) Hysteretic response of isolation system

Figure 7: Dynamic responses under 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake

Northridge-01 1994 Coyote Lake 1979 Imperial Valley-06 1979

Event
Station LA Dam Station Gilroy Array #6 Station Agrarias
Type Record Pulse Record Pulse Record Pulse
Maximum
0.531 0.378 0.465 0.389 0.363 0.252
Top Floor Acceleration (g)
Maximum
12.29 10.44 4.76 4.02 7.81 8.36
Base Displacement (cm)
Maximum
0.143 0.127 0.078 0.071 0.105 0.109
Base Shear/ Weight
Table 4: Maximum responses of different structural models

4 Conclusions

Although near fault ground motions are very complex due to the special effects of permanent tectonic
deformation and forward directivity, this study shows that simple pulse representations are capable of
capturing the salient response features of base-isolated structures subjected to near fault pulse-like ground
motions. An evaluation of the seismic response of structural models under pulse motions indicates that the
effect of the pulse is significantly dominant despite its short duration when compared to the full ground
motion record. From the results it can be declared that base displacement responses of base-isolated
models under equivalent pulses almost completely match with base displacement responses under the
related full records of near fault ground motions.
DYNAMICS OF CIVIL STRUCTURES 1247

References

[1] G.P. Mavroeidis, A.S. Papageorgiou, A mathematical representation of near-fault ground motions,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 93, No. 3, (2003), pp. 1099-1131.
[2] PG. Somerville, NF. Smith, RW. Graves, NA. Abrahamson, Modification of empirical strong ground
motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity, Seis
Res Let, Vol. 68, No. 1, (1997), pp. 199-222.
[3] IF. Hall, TH. Heaton, MW. Hailing, DJ. Wald, Near-source ground motions and its effects on flexible
buildings, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 11, No. 4, (1995), pp. 569-605.
[4] B. Alavi, H. Krawinkler, Considerations of near-fault ground motion effects in seismic design,
Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand, (2000), pp.
2665.
[5] B. Alavi, H. Krawinkler, Design considerations for near fault ground motions, Proceedings of the
US-Japan Workshop on the’ Effects of Near Fault Earthquake Shaking, San Francisco, (2000), pp.
55-63.
[6] B. Alavi, H. Krawinkler, Behavior of moment-resisting frame structures subjected to near-fault
ground motions, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 33, (2004), pp. 687-706.
[7] M. Sasani, V.V. Bertero, Importance of severe pulse-type ground motions in performance-based
engineering: Historical and critical review, Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, (2000), pp. 1302.
[8] A. Rodriguez-Marek, Near Fault Seismic Site Response, Ph.D. thesis, Civil Engineering, University
of California, Berkeley, (2000).
[9] JD. Bray, A. Rodriguez-Marek, Characterization of forward-directivity ground motions in the near-
fault region, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 24, (2004), pp. 815-828.
[10] C. Menun, Q. Fu, An analytical model for near-fault ground motions and the response of SDOF
system, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute eds, US National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Boston, Massachusetts: Mira Digital Publishing, No. 00011, (2002).
[11] X. Li, X. Zhu, Study on equivalent velocity pulse of near-fault ground motions, Aca Seismologica
Sinica, Vol. 26, No. 6, (2004), pp. 634-643. (in Chinese)
[12] J. Dai, M. Tong, GC. Lee, X. Qi, W. Bai, Dynamic responses under the excitation of pulse
sequences, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Vol. 3, No. 2, (2004), pp. 157-169.
[13] M.K. Sharbatdar, S.R. Hoseini Vaez, G. Ghodrati Amiri, H. Naderpour, Seismic response of base-
isolated structures with LRB and FPS under near fault ground motions, Procedia Engineering,
Elsevier, Vol. 14, (2011), pp. 3245-3251.
[14] S. Nagarajaiah, A.M. Reinhornm, M.C. Constantinou, Nonlinear dynamic analysis of 3D base-
isolated structures, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 7, (1991), pp. 2035-
2054.
[15] P.C. Tsopelas, P.C. Roussis, M.C. Constantinou, R. Buchanan, A.M. Reinhorn, 3D-BASIS-ME-MB,
Computer Program for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Seismically Isolated Structures, Manual,
(2005).
[16] F. Naeim, J.M. Kelly, Design of Seismic Isolated Structures from Theory to Practice, John Willy &
Sons, (1999).
[17] T.V. Pradeep Kumar, D.K. Paul, Force-deformation behavior of isolation bearings, Journal of
Bridge Engineering, ASCE, Volume 12, No. 4, (2007).
1248 P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2012-USD2012