Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motion
➤ Gửi thông báo lỗi ⚠️ Báo cáo tài liệu vi phạmNội dung chi tiết: Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motion
Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motion
Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I: Ground MotionJacobo Bielak, Antonio Fernandez, -Gregory L. Fenves, Jaesung Park, a Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motionand Bozidar StojadinovicCorresponding author: Gregor}' L. FenvesMailing address:Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of California, Berkeley Berkeley,'CA 94720-1710Phone: 510-643-8543Fax: 510-643-5264Email: fenves<§)ce.berkeley.eduI Submission date for review copies:Febftwty-l Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motionubc3£H-, 2004Submission date for camera-ready copies:■«Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motion
finite elements. I prefer to put finite differences and finite elements on an equal footing to avoid controversy. Otherwise we would have to add a morSpatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I: Ground MotionJacobo Bielak, Antonio Fernandez, -Gregory L. Fenves, Jaesung Park, a Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motionyou please add (lie authors' di filiations on (lie next page? Please copy from Paper 2. Ako, please reformat the abstract to conform to EarthquakeIBieldk?- 2Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I: Ground MotionJacobo Bielak, M.EER1, Antonio Fernandez,' M.EER1, Gregory L.F Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motionenves,2_f)-M.EERI, Jaesung Park,2rf and Bozidar Stojadinovic2,r' M.EERĨThe objective OÍ this study is Io examine, by computer computational simulationSpatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motion
, the spatial and temporal distribution of the earthquake response OÍ idealized smtcmres to neat-source ground motiongroimd motion near a causative faSpatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I: Ground MotionJacobo Bielak, Antonio Fernandez, -Gregory L. Fenves, Jaesung Park, a Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motionampling for frequencies up to 5 Hz. Two scenario events are considered, a a-strike-slip fault and a thrust fault, in a layer on a halfspacer by the use of finite dislocation models. These idealized models are representative of two common types- of earthquakes, in which the directivity of the rupture Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motion generates large, short-duration, velocity pulses tn (he forward direction, and large spattai variation of the free-surfaee-motion-dHeHgheuf-the-ept€eSpatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motion
nifal-regtem-_We-ebtam-a-dense-spatial sampling of ground motion over a large region for frequencies up to 5 Hz in order to elucidate the effec ts OÍ Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I: Ground MotionJacobo Bielak, Antonio Fernandez, -Gregory L. Fenves, Jaesung Park, a Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motiontivity effect with a strong pulse-type motion approximately twice the amplitude of the motion in the fault parahd-direciion. The dynamic effect in the fault parallel direction produces a pulse-type motion near the epicenter. For the thrust fault event the greatest concentration of ground displacemen Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motiont occurs near the corners ol the fault opixisite the hviX)center, in the rake direction. In contrast with the strike-slip fault, the ground displacemeSpatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motion
nt in the direction of the slip is greater by a factor of two than in the direction normal to the slip.. In a companion paper, we examine how the IreeSpatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I: Ground MotionJacobo Bielak, Antonio Fernandez, -Gregory L. Fenves, Jaesung Park, a Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motionsingle -degiee-of-frecdom elastoplastic systems.A-fompanton-paper-then-ttses-ihe-syntheác-reeords-toexamine-how-rhe-ftee-field gimiiKl mouon for the two scenario earthquakes influences the spatial distribution of structural response of a family of SDF elustopluslie systems tn a region dose to the ca Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motionusative fault.Professor. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, liiLi.formerly. Graduate StudeSpatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motion
nt Reseaivher, Depaitment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 1S2I3; cinrently. Manager of internationSpatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I: Ground MotionJacobo Bielak, Antonio Fernandez, -Gregory L. Fenves, Jaesung Park, a Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motionsity of California, Berkeley, CA, 94720.f Graduate Student Reseairher, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univeisitv (it California. Berkeley, C.A, 94720." Associate Professor. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. University of California, Berkeley.CAr 94720Bielak - 1IN Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground MotionTRODUCTIONLarge earthquakes in urban regions cause a highly variable spatial distribution of damage to the built-infrastructure because of source effeSpatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motion
cts, path effects, large-scale geological structures such as sedimentary' basins, site response effects, and the structural characteristics of the buiSpatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I: Ground MotionJacobo Bielak, Antonio Fernandez, -Gregory L. Fenves, Jaesung Park, a Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motionen-Nanbu, Japan, M„=6.9 earthquake (Akai et al., 1995) raised profound questions about these effects, with particular concern about the large velocity pulses at sites near the faults. Additional data obtained from the 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey, jVf,.=7.4 earthquake (Rathje et al., 2000) and the 1999 Chi- Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground MotionChi, Taiwan, Mw=7.6 earthquake (Li and Shin, 2001) provided further evidence that the spatial distribution of ground motion in a region is related toSpatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motion
the fault mechanism and path effects. The large number of ground motion data recorded in these earthquakes confirmed that near-fault pulse-type groundSpatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I: Ground MotionJacobo Bielak, Antonio Fernandez, -Gregory L. Fenves, Jaesung Park, a Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motione spatial distribution of ground motion based on the extensive records obtained in the 1994 Northridge earthquake atttl its aftershocks. Aftershock records obtained by Meremonte et al. (1996) and Hartzell et al. (1997) showed that the amplitude of peak ground velocity varied by a factor of two or gr Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motioneater at different sites with the same general geological structure but separated by distances of only 200 m. Boatwright et al. (2001) developed correSpatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motion
lations between ground motion parameters and effects on structural response, as measured by an intensity measure based on building tags. The correlatiSpatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I: Ground MotionJacobo Bielak, Antonio Fernandez, -Gregory L. Fenves, Jaesung Park, a Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motionocity (between 0.3 and 3.0 seconds period), which is Uneariwrelated to PGV, is a good predictor. Contours of PGV and averaged pseudo-velocity correspond to the spatial distribution of damage based on a tagging intensity. In another study using 1994 Northridge earthquake strong motion data, Bozoignia Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motion and Bertero (2002) examined varietts-respensethe spatial dỉsưibution of structural response parameters associated with damage. quamfties-asseeiated-wSpatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motion
rth-sifHeiwal-damage-as (he spatial dtstributioft-eFdamage-parameters^ .The spatial distribution of ductility demand for single-degree-of-freedom (SDFSpatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I: Ground MotionJacobo Bielak, Antonio Fernandez, -Gregory L. Fenves, Jaesung Park, a Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motiontr analysis shows that 1-sec- and 3-sec- period SDF systems reacft a ductility demand of 9 and 5, respectively:—-The large ductility demands are concentrated in the updip region direction of slip of-fhe-burted-thrust-fault-for the 1-sec case and the updip direction and epicentral area for the 3-sec Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motioncase. Additional results are presented for spatial distributions of structural damage measures that include the effect of ductility and hysteretic eneSpatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motion
rgy demands and capacities.An important feature of large-magnitude earthquakes in the near field is rhe large amount of seismic energy from the rupturSpatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I: Ground MotionJacobo Bielak, Antonio Fernandez, -Gregory L. Fenves, Jaesung Park, a Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motionon (e.g., Somerville et al., 1997). Somerville (1998) defines the forward directivity effects occurring at sites where the fault rupture propagates towards the site and rhe direction of fault slip is aligned in the direction of the site. These conditions are met with strike-slip faults and dipslip r Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motionupture in thrust faults. Forward directivity effects in the fault normal direction occur in all locations along a strike-slip fault. For thrust faultsSpatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I Ground Motion
, however, forward directivity effects occur mostly in the surface projection of the fault, updip from the hypocenter. BackwardBielak2- 2Spatial Distribution of Simulated Response for Earthquakes, Part I: Ground MotionJacobo Bielak, Antonio Fernandez, -Gregory L. Fenves, Jaesung Park, aGọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook