Seismic performance of frame‐bent structures subjected to near‐fault ground motions

The Journal of EngineeringVolume 2021, Issue 8 p. 429-436 ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPEROpen Access Seismic performance of frame-bent structures subjected to near-fault ground motions Shuyun Zhang, Corresponding Author zhshy@xust.edu.cn School of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Xi'an University of Science and Technology, Xi'an, China Correspondence School of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Xi'an University of Science and Technology, Xi'an 710054, China. Email: zhshy@xust.edu.cnSearch for more papers by this authorLei Huang, School of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Xi'an University of Science and Technology, Xi'an, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorGang Wang, Shaanxi Architectural Design and Research Institute, Xi'an, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorYousufu Ma, School of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Xi'an University of Science and Technology, Xi'an, ChinaSearch for more papers by this author Shuyun Zhang, Corresponding Author zhshy@xust.edu.cn School of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Xi'an University of Science and Technology, Xi'an, China Correspondence School of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Xi'an University of Science and Technology, Xi'an 710054, China. Email: zhshy@xust.edu.cnSearch for more papers by this authorLei Huang, School of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Xi'an University of Science and Technology, Xi'an, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorGang Wang, Shaanxi Architectural Design and Research Institute, Xi'an, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorYousufu Ma, School of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Xi'an University of Science and Technology, Xi'an, ChinaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 09 July 2021 https://doi.org/10.1049/tje2.12023AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Abstract Reinforced concrete frame-bent structures are one of the structural forms commonly used in industrial factory buildings. In order to study the seismic behaviour of frame-bent structures located near fault areas, eight pulse-like, eight non-pulse near-fault motions and eight far-fault ground motions have been selected in this paper. The finite element model of a reinforced concrete frame-bent structure was established to study seismic responses to near-fault and far-field ground motions. Numerical analysis results indicate that the maximum base shear of the structure under the action of near-fault ground motion was 5.10 times that of far-fault and 1.47 times that of non-pulsed near-fault ground motion; the maximum story drift angle under pulse-like near-fault ground motion was 3.8 times that of non-pulse and 19.7 times that of far-fault ground motion. Therefore, engineering designers should pay more attention to the seismic performance of frame-bent structures under the action of near-fault ground vibration. 1 INTRODUCTION Researchers usually regard the areas less than 20 km away from the fault rupture surface as near-fault area [1], the ground motions beyond this range are collectively referred to as far-fault motions. A large number of near-fault earthquakes have been recorded, such as Northridge earthquake in 1994, Kobe earthquake in 1995, Izmit and Duzce earthquakes in 1999 in Turkey, Chi-Chi earthquake in 1999 and Wenchuan earthquake in 2008 [2-4]. It has been found that near-fault ground motions are accompanied by larger velocity and displacement impulses, which expose the structures to high energy impacts at the beginning causing larger internal forces and deformations with damage forces of more astonishing than that in far-field seismic areas. Near-fault earthquakes have occurred in many of 672 cities in China. About 40% of these cities have experienced near-fault earthquakes with magnitude 4 or higher [5]. Structural response to near-fault ground motions has received great attention in the last 20 years [6]. In 1987, Bertero studied the responses of 10-story steel frames to near-fault pulse-like ground motions, and the found that the bottom stories had suffered great damages [7]. Zhang and Wang [8] studied near-fault and far-fault ground motion effects on nonlinear dynamic response and seismic damage of concrete gravity dams including dam-reservoir-foundation interaction. It was seen from the analysis results that near-fault ground motions, which had significant influence on the dynamic response of dam-reservoir-foundation systems, had the potential to cause more severe damage to the dam body than far-fault ground motions. Degao Zou et al. [9] analysed the seismic failure of a high concrete face rockfill dam subjected to near-fault pulse-like ground motions and found that although near-fault pulse-like ground motion had a moderate impact on dam acceleration, it had a remarkable impact on the residual deformation of dam and concrete slab damage, especially on dam crest. The responses of a 5-story and a 10-story reinforced concrete frame structures under near-field pulsed and far-field earthquakes were studied by Liao et al. [10].The structural responses were related to the ratio of peak ground velocity to peak ground acceleration (PGV/PGA) and spectral velocity (SV) are found, input energy (Ei) . Soyluk et al. [11-13] showed that impulsive ground motions generated close to faults had more important effects on the dynamic responses of bridge type structural systems than those resulted from far-fault ground motions. In order to study the responses of high-rise buildings to near-fault ground motions, time history analysis of a 20-story benchmark model under 13 near-fault earthquake records with wider acceleration sensitive regions was carried out by Mingqi et al. [14] and it was found that both maximum roof displacement and maximum base shear of structures were increased with the increase of PGV/PGA ratio. The seismic responses of these reinforced concrete framed structures subjected to near-fault pulse-like and ordinary ground motions were investigated by Kun [15]. It was shown through numerical results that consideration of the effect of near-fault pulse-like ground motions on the structures was not adequate and story-drift was greater than the limit of 2%. Therefore, it was suggested that seismic modification coefficient had to be no less than the existing value in order to ensure the safety of structures in near-fault regions. Xu et al. [16] studied the seismic performance of a typical reinforced concrete shear wall high-rise building subjected to near-fault ground motion with fling effects. Results showed that near-fault ground motions with fling-step significantly affected the performance of high-risen structures with longer period. At the same time, for shorter period structures, fling effects could not be ignored once the structure entered remarkable nonlinear state. Yaorong et al. [17] compared the characteristics of elastic response spectra for two types of near-fault ground motions with those obtained from general ground motions. It was concluded that the effects of the studied two motions on the acceleration, dynamic, velocity and, displacement responses as well as hysteretic energy of medium-to-long period structures were all greater than those of general ground motions. A correlation analysis of 20 intensity indices of two types of near-fault ground motion were separately conducted. It was recognized that PGA index was the best choice for the analysis of short-period and medium-to-long period structures. Reinforced concrete frame-bent structures are widely used in industrial buildings. Due to the need for production technology, their overall structure layout is complex and irregular and their seismic performance is poor [18]. Whether the building structure of near fault region to meet the "three level" protection principle, more need to be further studied, the dynamic time history analysis under the action of a frame structure of near fault ground motions, and provide reference for seismic design of industrial buildings near fault area. 2 SELECTION OF GROUND MOTION RECORDS In the Chi-Chi earthquake of 1999, the epicentre was located in JiJi town, Taiwan. At least two faults cross the town. Most of the buildings in the town are located in typical near-fault areas [19]. Taiwan Strong Ground Motion Observation Program has set up more than 700 high-precision seismic recorders in the earthquake zone, among which about 70 are located in near-fault areas less than 20 km from the fault [20]. Even today, seismic records greater than magnitude 7 in areas less than 20 km away from faults are very valuable. According to the analysis of near-fault strong earthquake observation data, the inversion of seismic source process and numerical simulation of near-fault ground motion found mainly has the characteristics of near-fault ground motion [21-25]: (1) concentration of near-fault strong ground motions; (2) surface rupture and fling-step; (3) rupture forward directivity effect; (4) large velocity pulse; and (5) hanging wall [26]. It was found that the most prominent feature of near-fault seismic was velocity pulse, which was mainly created by near-fault seismic forward directional and slip effects [27-29]. Researchers often use the peak value of ground motion ratio of PGV/PGA > 0.2 as the basis for judging the existence of velocity pulses in ground motions. Multi-pulse analysis (MPA) method can determine the direction of the strongest energy of horizontal two-way ground motion by continuous wavelet transform and can quantitatively determine pulse index, pulse period, significant wavelet number and other important parameters along the strongest direction [30]. The results of MPA analysis showed that when impulse index was above 0.85, it could be judged that the ground motion belonged to impulse type. As impulse index tended to 1, ground motion waveform was more transformed into pulse waveform [31]. Application of MPA method provided more accurate judgement on whether the ground motion contained velocity impulse. MPA method was used to select Chi-Chi near-fault seismic records from the database of Pacific Seismic Engineering Research Center (PEER) of the United States as seismic input for structures. According to the requirement that fault spacing had not to exceed 20 km, 10 groups of seismic time histories were selected. The specific parameters identified for eight groups of near-fault pulse-like ground motions are shown in Table 1. In addition, eight near-fault ground motion records of Chi-Chi without pulse effect and eight far-fault ground motions more than 80 km away from faults were selected from PEER. The 24 seismic records selected in this paper are shown in Table 2. TABLE 1. The specific parameters identified as 8 near fault pulse-like ground motion Station name The strongest direction (°) Pulse index Pulse period/s The number of significant wavelets d/km Mw TCU054 -54.47 0.931 7.126 2 5.3 7.6 TCU068 -34.83 1.000 11.242 1 0.3 7.6 TCU052 -40.99 0.987 10.836 1 0.7 7.6 TCU128 84.04 0.999 9.002 3 13.2 7.6 CHY006 -69.84 0.965 2.88 6 14.5 7.6 CHY024 1.83 0.958 6.44 2 9.62 7.6 CHY101 5.32 0.999 5.36 2 13.3 7.6 TCU101 69.02 0.999 10.18 5 2.11 7.6 TABLE 2. Properties of selected near-fault and far-fault ground motions considered in this investigation Station Ground motions No. Name D (km) PGA (g) PGV (cm/s) PGV/PGA Near-fault pulse-like 1 TCU054 5.3 0.13 43.36 0.33 2 TCU068 0.3 0.34 236.7 0.71 3 TCU052 0.7 0.36 119.9 0.34 4 TCU128 13.2 0.13 48.26 0.37 5 CHY024 9.62 0.28 51.1 0.19 6 CHY006 14.5 0.36 102.3 0.29 7 CHY101 13.3 0.34 64.97 0.20 8 TCU101 2.11 0.21 76.77 0.38 Near-fault non-pulse 9 TCU074 13.5 0.60 70.36 0.12 10 TCU071 5.8 0.50 52.28 0.11 11 TCU072 7.1 0.48 41.57 0.09 12 TCU078 8.2 0.42 29.55 0.07 13 TCU057 11.9 0.31 38.21 0.12 14 TCU079 10.9 0.52 70.50 0.08 15 CHY010 19.9 0.17 24.21 0.14 16 CHY029 10.9 0.29 35.20 0.12 Far-fault 17 Phelan-Wilson Ranch 090 85.9 0.06 4.50 0.08 18 Phelan-Wilson Ranch 180 86.9 0.07 5.70 0.08 19 San Jacinto-CDF Fire Sta 000 147.6 0.09 8.80 0.11 20 San Jacinto-CDF Fire Sta 090 147.6 0.07 7.00 0.10 21 Newport Bch-Newp & Coast 090 84.5 0.10 5.8 0.06 22 Newport Bch-Newp & Coast 180 84.5 0.09 6.3 0.08 23 Wrightwood-Nielson Ranch 090 81.7 0.04 2.9 0.07 24 Wrightwood-Nielson Ranch 180 81.7 0.04 3.2 0.08 Near-fault and far-fault ground motion records were normalized to obtain a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.4 g according to Chinese regulations. Then, nonlinear time history analysis was used to analyse seismic responses [32]. 3 ESTABLISHMENT OF FRAME BENT STRUCTURE MODEL 3.1 Typical structures A reinforced concrete frame-bent structure with height 17 m, length 66 m and width 32.1 m was selected as a typical structure. The layout of structure and elevation of A-C axis are shown in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. In this paper, bending moment hinge was added to both ends of beams, as shown in Figure 3, P hinge was specified at the middle and both ends of the support bar, as shown in Figure 4, and PMM coupling hinge was set at both ends of the column, and its correlation curve is shown in Figure 5. The two ends referred to 0.1 and 0.9 of the relative position of the unit. FIGURE 1Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Structure plan layout FIGURE 2Open in figure viewerPowerPoint The elevation drawing of A–C axis FIGURE 3Open in figure viewerPowerPoint M3 hinge properties for the beam FIGURE 4Open in figure viewerPowerPoint P hinge properties for the support bar FIGURE 5Open in figure viewerPowerPoint PMM hinge properties for the column The A–B axis of the building was the frame part which was used as an office and B–C axis was the bent part. The upper three floors were 4.8 m high, the upper two floors were 3.6 m high, and roof was unmanned. The bent part had a span of 24 m, column elevation was 17 m, there was a crane with a lifting weight of 20 tons at 12 m, and roof was a grid structure. Floor and roof live loads were 3.5 and 0.5 kN/m2, respectively, basic wind pressure was 0.35 kN/m2, basic snow pressure was 0.25 kN/m2, reinforced concrete volume weight was 25 kN/m3, and steel bar volume weight was 78 kN/m3. Beam and column section sizes were obtained from literature [33]. Beam, column and floor were cast-in-place and concrete grade was C40. Dead load came from the weight of the component and the additional load on it. Slab thickness was 100 mm. 3.2 Establishment of finite element model Due to the uneven distribution of the mass and stiffness of frame-bent and complex system, the original model was appropriately simplified to develop finite element model. Because it could not accurately simulate the stiffness of bent roof and had little influence on the dynamic characteristics of the whole structure, the connection between roof truss and bent was regarded as an ideal hinge. In the calculation and analysis, structural members were simplified to spatial bar or shell elements and beam, column and support were replaced with bar elements, considering the shear and axial deformations of the elements. Floor was simulated by thin shell element (SHELL) under the assumption of rigid diaphragm. Discrete rod and shell elements were connected with nodes generated by SAP2000 software to develop a spatial finite element model involving only the out-of-plane deformation of the floor. In finite element model, beam-column elements was considered as macroscopic bar elements and floor was assumed as shell element. The established three-dimensional computational analysis model is shown in Figure 6. FIGURE 6Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Calculation of the three-dimensional model 3.3 Definition of plastic hinge Plastic hinge was produced from elastic stage to plastic stage. The relationship curve between internal force and displacement of key points was calculated to define axial force and shear hinge and bending moment and torsion hinge were defined by bending/torsion-rotation or bending/torsion-curvature curves, respectively. The nonlinearity of the members were simulated by adding plastic hinges at both ends of the members, M hinges at both ends of beams, PMM hinges at both ends of columns, and P hinges at the middle and ends of supports. The concrete information of plastic hinges had to be determined by the section form of the component. In order to observe the distribution and development of plastic hinges under various working conditions after the completion of the non-linear analysis, the program adopted different colours to represent the state of each plastic hinge. The seismic resistance of the model was evaluated according to the sequence, location and number of plastic hinges. 4 DYNAMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS OF FRAME-BENT STRUCTURES SUBJECTED TO NEAR-FAULT AND FAR-FAULT GROUND MOTIONS The mass and stiffness of the calculated models along X and Y directions were quite different and Y axis was relatively weak. The vibration of the structure was changed in space because of the use of three-dimensional numerical model; therefore, any mode of vibration had components along three directions and the main direction had to be found. Modal analysis showed that the first period of the structure was 0.46 s and the translation along transverse direction was the main one. At the same time, from frame-bent structure [34-36], it was concluded that bi-directional earthquake action had an increasing effect on story drift and floor torsional angle and the influence of bi-directional earthquakes had to be considered in the design. Therefore, the directions of seismic wave input in dynamic time history analysis were transverse and longitudinal and the two-way input of the same seismic wave with transverse direction as the main direction and longitudinal peak value of 85%. By analysing the seismic response of frame-bent structures under impulse near-fault, non-impulse near-fault and far-field earthquakes, the dynamic response values of the structures, including maximum inter-story displacement and maximum base shear force, were obtained as listed in Table 3. In this paper, the seismic performance of frame-bent structures was analysed from displacement response and maximum base shear . TABLE 3. Response analysis results under three different seismic actions Ground motions The maximum story drift (m) The maximum story drift angle The maximum base shear (kN) PGA (g) PGV/PGA (s) TCU052 0.043 0.0222 12,283 0.358 0.34 TCU054 0.079 0.0095 7092 0.134 0.33 TCU068 0.043 0.0300 7218 0.340 0.71 TCU128 0.018 0.0167 11,056 0.133 0.37 CHY024 0.038 0.0278 7755 0.280 0.19 CHY006 0.030 0.0102 7470 0.359 0.29 CHY101 0.027 0.0238 7005 0.340 0.20 TCU101 0.035 0.0312 7704 0.210 0.38 TCU071 0.014 0.0078 5012 0.529 0.10 TCU072 0.011 0.0089 5974 0.466 0.09 TCU074 0.021 0.0053 8372 0.596 0.12 TCU078 0.008 0.0048 4160 0.424 0.07 TCU057 0.042 0.0036 4480 0.310 0.12 TCU079 0.054 0.0064 6760 0.520 0.08 CHY010 0.049 0.0058 3330 0.170 0.14 CHY029 0.060 0.0071 4140 0.290 0.12 Phelan–Wilson Ranch 090 0.003 0.0028 1676 0.057 0.08 Phelan–Wilson Ranch 180 0.003 0.0038 1742 0.069 0.08 San Jacinto-CDF Fire Sta 000 0.003 0.0028 1800 0.085 0.11 San Jacinto-CDF Fire Sta 090 0.004 0.0062 2410 0.069 0.10 Newport Bch-Newp & Coast 090 0.0035 0.0028 1760 0.103 0.06 Newport Bch-Newp & Coast 180 0.0031 0.0057 1640 0.085 0.08 Wrightwood–Nielson Ranch 090 0.0028 0.0025 1376 0.042 0.07 Wrightwood–Nielson Ranch 180 0.0025 0.0024 1344 0.041 0.08 4.1 Structural displacement response In case of earthquakes, in order to prevent structural damages caused by excessive relative displacements between floors, floor displacement and story drift angle are generally considered. Figures 7-9 show the distributions of floor displacement and story drift angle for frame-bent structure under three different types of earthquakes with different heights. FIGURE 7Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Displacement response under pulse-like near-fault ground motions. (a) Floor displacement distribution, (b) story drift angle distribution curve FIGURE 8Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Displacement response under non-pulse near-fault ground motions. (a) Floor displacement distribution, (b) story drift angle distribution curve FIGURE 9Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Displacement response under far-fault ground motions. (a) Floor displacement distribution, (b) story drift angle distribution curve It can be seen from Figures 7-9 that the maximum story drift angle of the structure in pulse-like near-fault ground motion was the largest, in far-fault ground motion it was the smallest, and in non-pulse near-fault ground motion it was the moderate for all three types of earthquakes. The effect of pulse-like near-fault ground motion was obviously greater than that of far-fault ground motion, indicating that pulse-like near-fault ground motion had great influence on the structure. Moreover, under the action of TCU052, the story drift angle of the structure was 0.0222, which exceeded 1/50, indicating that some provisions in current seismic code for frame-bent structures under near-fault seismic action had not been fully taken into account. 4.2 Analysis of maximum base shear force of structures According to the calculation results, the maximum and minimum basement shears of the structure were 12,283 and 7005 kN respectively, with the average value of 8448 kN under the action of pulse-like near-fault earthquakes. Under the action of non-pulse near-fault earthquakes, the maximum and minimum basement shear of the structure were 8372 and 3330 kN, respectively, with the average value of 5279 kN. Under far-fault earthquakes, the maximum and minimum shear forces of structure basement were 2410 and 1344 kN, respectively, with the average value of 1719 kN. Through comparative analysis, it was concluded that the maximum basement shears force of frame-bent structure under impulse near-fault earthquake was larger than that under non-pulse near-fault earthquake, the maximum basement shears force under impulse near-fault earthquake was 5.10 times higher than that under far-fault earthquake and 1.47 times that of non-pulse ground motions. It was seen that, compared with non-pulse near-fault earthquake, velocity impulse effect increased the demand for basement shear force of the structure. Pulsed near-fault earthquakes greatly increased the base shear of structures. The base shear of structures under non-pulsed near-fault earthquakes was 3.47 times that under far-fault earthquakes. Generally speaking, the influence of near-fault earthquakes on the base shear of frame-bent structures was greater than that of far-fault earthquakes. Therefore, the influence of near-fault had to be considered in the design of frame-bent structures in near-fault areas. 5 CONCLUSIONS The dynamic response of the frame-bent structure subjected to pulse-like and non-pulse near-fault and far-fault ground motions have been investigated and compared in this paper. Comparative analyses of the seismic behaviours of these structures under three types of ground motions from plastic hinge distribution, displacement response, maximum base shear and energy. The following conclusions were drawn: Under near-fault ground motion, the structure was damaged earlier than that under non-pulse ground motion, while under far-fault ground motion, the plastic hinge of the structure was in a safe stage and the structure was not damaged. The highest story drift of frame-bent structure was increased with the increase of the ratio of peak ground velocity to peak ground acceleration (PGV/PGA). Besides, maximum story drift angle under pulse-like near-fault ground motion was 3.8 times the non-pulse and 19.7 times the far-fault ground motions; especially for pulse-like ground motion TCU052, the highest story drift angle exceeded the limit value of 1/50. For the maximum base shear of the structure, pulse-like near-fault ground motion was 5.1 times that of far-fault and 1.47 times that of non-pulse ground motions. The results of dynamic response analysis under near-fault ground motions indicated that the "minor earthquake, repairable under moderate earthquake, no collapse under strong earthquake" principle of seismic fortification under near-fault ground motions could not be well guaranteed, and the current seismic code for frame-bent structure design in near-fault area needed to be adjusted. In summary, when a frame-bent structure was located in near-fault region, the unfavourable effects of pulse-like ground motion on the structural deformation and column damage had to be taken into account more seriously. In order to improve the seismic capacity of the structure, seismic strengthening measures had to be taken for frame-bent structure in near-fault areas. For example, steel plate shear walls had to be arranged in positions where columns were easily damaged to study whether the seismic performance of the structure could be improved. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no. 51708448). REFERENCES 1Stewart, J.P., et al.: Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 22, 765 (2002) CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar 2Somerville, P.G.: Magnitude scaling of the near fault rupture directivity pulse. Phys. Earth Planet Int. 137, 201– 212 (2003) CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar 3Yang, D., Wang, W.: Nonlocal period parameters of frequency content characterization for near-fault ground motions. Earthquake Eng. Struct Dyn. 41(13), 1793– 1811 (2012) Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar 4Wang, G.Q., et al.: Characteristics of amplitude and duration for near-fault strong ground motion from the1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 22(1), 73– 96 (2002) CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar 5Li, S., Xie, L.L.: Progress and trend on near-field problems in civil engineering. Acta Seismo Sinica 29(1), 102 (2007). Google Scholar 6Ma, H.J., Yi, W.J.: Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures Subjected to Near-Field Earthquake Ground Motions, pp. 1– 77. Hunan University, Hunan (2009) Google Scholar 7Anderson, J.C., Bertero, V.V.: Uncertainties in establishing design earthquakes. J. Struct. Eng. 113(8), 1709– 1724 (1987) CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar 8Zhang, S.R., Wang, G.H.: Effects of near-fault and far-fault ground motions on nonlinear dynamic response and seismic damage of concrete gravity dams. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 53, 217– 229 (2013) CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar 9Zou, D.G., et al.: Seismic failure analysis for a high concrete face rockfill dam subjected to near-fault pulse-like ground motions. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 98, 235– 243 (2017) CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar 10Liao, W.I., Loh, C.H., Wan, S.: Earthquake responses of RC moment frames subjected to near-fault ground motions. Struct. Design Tall Build. 10(3), 219– 229 (2001) Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar 11Kurtulus, S., Hayrettin, K.: Near-fault and far-fault ground motion effects on cable-supported bridges. Procedia Eng. 199, 3077– 3082 (2017) CrossrefGoogle Scholar 12Yasrebi, L., Ghafory-Ashtiany, M.: Inelastic response of a long span bridge under asynchronous near-fault pulse-like and far-field excitations. J. Seismol. Earthquake Eng. 16(2), 111– 128 (2014) Google Scholar 13Mosleh, A., et al.: Seismic fragility analysis of typical pre-1990 bridges due to near-and far-field ground motions. J. Struct. Eng. 8, 1– 9 (2016) Google Scholar 14Lu, M.Q., Tian, Y.J., Yang, Q.S.: Analysis of seismic response of high-rise building to near-fault ground motions. J. Harbin Instit. Technol. 39(2), 314– 317 (2007) Google Scholar 15Ye, K., et al.: Seismic response of RC frame structures subjected to near-fault pulse-like ground motion. J. Civil. Eng. Management 28(3), 385– 390 (2011) Google Scholar 16Li, X., Carlos, E.V., He, M.J.: Seismic performance assessment of high-rise buildings subjected to near-fault ground motion with fling effects. J. of Tongji Univ. (Nat. Sci.) 40(1), 14– 21 (2012) Google Scholar 17Dong, Y.R., Cheng, Y., Bai, G.L.: Analysis of spectrum characteristics and intensity index for near-fault ground motions. Industrial Construction 45(7), 102– 107 (2015) Google Scholar 18Song, Y.Q., et al.: Elastoplastic time-history analysis of frame-bent structure for main mill building of large-scale thermal power plant. Industrial Construction 40(1), 51– 54 (2010) Google Scholar 19Abrahamson, N.A.: Near-fault ground motions from the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake. Paper presented at U.S. Japan Workshop on the Effects of Near-Field Earthquake Shaking, San Francisco, CA, 20–21 March 2000Google Scholar 20Aagaard, B.T., John, F.H., Thomas, H.H.: Characterization of near source ground motions with earthquake simulations. Earthquake Spectra 17(2), 177– 207 (2001) CrossrefGoogle Scholar 21Abrahamson, N.A., Somerville, P.G.: Effects of the hanging wall and footwall on ground motions recorded during the Northridge earthquake. Bull. Seismic Soc. Am. 86, S93– S99 (1996) Web of Science®Google Scholar 22Sekiguchi, H., Iwata, T.: Rupture process of the 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey, earthquake estimated from strong-motion waveforms. Bull. Seismic Soc. Am. 92, 300– 311 (2002) CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar 23Liu, Q.F., Yuan, Y.F., Jin, X.: Spatial distribution of near-fault ground motion. Acta Seismol. Sinica 26(2), 183– 192 (2004) Google Scholar 24Liu, Q.F., Yuan, Y.F., Jin, X.: Basic characteristics of near-fault ground motion. Earthquake Eng. Eng. Vibration 5(1), 1– 9 (2006) CrossrefGoogle Scholar 25Bray, J.D., Rodriguez-Marek, A.: Characterization of forward-directivity ground motions in the near-fault region. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 24(11), 815 (2004) CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar 26Hall, J.F., Aagaard, B.T.: Fundamentals of the near-source problem. Paper presented at 5th Caltrans Seismic Research Workshop, Sacramento, CA, 16–18 June 1998Google Scholar 27Abrahamson, N.: Incorporating Effects of Near Fault Tectonic Deformation into Design Ground Motions. University of Buffalo seminar, Buffalo (2001) Google Scholar 28Liu, C.G., Xia, C.X.: Classification and characterization of multi-pulse near-fault strong ground motion in Taiwan Chi-Chi earthquake event. Chinese Sci. Paper 10(9), 1043– 1049 (2015) Google Scholar 29Xia, C.X., Liu, Y.Z., Liu, C.G.: Characteristics analysis of bridge piers under multi-pulse near-fault earthquake excitation. J. Vibration Shock 36(2), 95–100+110 (2017) Google Scholar 30Yao, T., Chung, H., Fu, C.: Seismic effect on highway bridges in Chi-Chi earthquake. J. Perform Constr. Facilities 18(1), 47– 53 (2004) CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar 31Shin, T., et al.: A preliminary report on the 1999 Chi-Chi (Taiwan) earthquake. Seismological Res. Lett. 71(1), 23– 29 (2000) CrossrefGoogle Scholar 32Su, X.D., Liu, Y.H.: Seismic Response Analysis of Steel Grid Box-Like Structures Subjected to Near-Fault Ground Motions, pp. 1– 85. Xi'an University of Technology, Xi'an (2017) Google Scholar 33Wang, G., Zhang, S.Y.: Elastic-Plastic Seismic Response Analysis of Frame-Bent Structures, pp. 1– 64. Xi'an University of Science and Technology, Xi'an (2017) Google Scholar 34Bai, G.L., An, J.L., Chen, L.: Seismic response of the frame-bent structure for main building of a large-scale thermal power plant considering three-dimensional effect. Earthquake Resist. Eng. Retrofitting 28(5), 25– 28 (2006) Google Scholar 35Zhang, Y.C., Wang, C.S.: Seismic performance analysis of a main power building of a thermal power plant. World Earthquake Eng. 31(1), 134– 138 (2015) CASGoogle Scholar 36Dai, K.S., et al.: Elasto-plastic analysis of a large braced frame steel power plant structure. China Civil Eng. J. 49(2), 114– 119 (2016) Google Scholar Volume2021, Issue8August 2021Pages 429-436 FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation