Developing a Regression Model for Predicting the Seismic Input Energy of RC Buildings Using 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake

Abstract

Energy-based seismic analysis and structural design require understanding the seismic input energy response of reinforced concrete buildings subjected to strong ground motions. Thus, calculating and predicting input energies becomes of great importance. The object of this study is to introduce a regression model for predicting the seismic input energies of reinforced concrete buildings using the 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake. For this purpose, three regular 3, 6 and 9-storey residential reinforced concrete buildings are designed. Input energy response histories of buildings subjected to a set of horizontal acceleration histories of 67 stations of the February 6 Kahramanmaraş earthquake were obtained. Subsequently, the ground motion parameters were used to estimate the input energies. It was revealed that acceleration-based parameters generally had better consequences than velocity-based parameters in low periods, while the opposite was the case in high periods. This study proposed new equations in which multiple ground motion parameters are combined to better reflect input energy from a single parameter. As the height and period of the buildings increase, the multiple linear regression coefficient decreases and the estimation of input energy becomes difficult with the ground motion parameters.

Keywords

• Kahramanmaraş earthquake
• Input energy
• Multiple regression
• Correlation

Kaynakça

1. Zengin B, Aydin F. The Effect of Material Quality on Buildings Moderately and Heavily Damaged by the Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes. Appl Sci 2023;13.
2. Işık E. Structural Failures of Adobe Buildings during the February 2023 Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) Earthquakes. Appl Sci 2023;13.
3. Avcil F, Işık E, İzol R, Büyüksaraç A, Arkan E, Arslan MH, vd. Effects of the February 6, 2023, Kahramanmaraş earthquake on structures in Kahramanmaraş city. 2023.
4. Ozturk M, Arslan MH, Korkmaz HH. Effect on RC buildings of 6 February 2023 Turkey earthquake doublets and new doctrines for seismic design. Eng Fail Anal 2023;153:107521.
5. Balun B. Assessment of seismic parameters for 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes. Struct Eng Mech 2023;88:117–28.
6. Işık E, Avcil F, Büyüksaraç A, İzol R, Hakan Arslan M, Aksoylu C, vd. Structural damages in masonry buildings in Adıyaman during the Kahramanmaraş (Turkiye) earthquakes (Mw 7.7 and Mw 7.6) on 06 February 2023. Eng Fail Anal 2023;151.
7. Ozkula G, Dowell RK, Baser T, Lin JL, Numanoglu OA, Ilhan O, vd. Field reconnaissance and observations from the February 6, 2023, Turkey earthquake sequence. vol. 119. Springer Netherlands; 2023.
8. Ozturk M, Arslan MH, Dogan G, Ecemis AS, Arslan HD. School buildings performance in 7.7 Mw and 7.6 Mw catastrophic earthquakes in southeast of Turkey. J Build Eng 2023;79:107810.

9. Nemutlu ÖF, Balun B, Sarı A. 06 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş Depremleri Kaynaklı Yapısal Hasarların Adıyaman İli Özelinde İncelenmesi. 3rd Int. Conf. Innov. Acad. Stud., Konya, Turkey: 2023, s. 353–61.
10. Işık E, Avcil F, Arkan E, Büyüksaraç A, İzol R, Topalan M. Structural damage evaluation of mosques and minarets in Adıyaman due to the 06 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes. Eng Fail Anal 2023;151.
11. Büyüksaraç A, Işık E, Bektaş Ö, Avcil F. Achieving Intensity Distributions of 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş (Türkiye) Earthquakes from Peak Ground Acceleration Records. Sustain 2024;16.
12. Nemutlu ÖF, Sarı A, Balun B. 06 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş Depremlerinde (Mw 7.7-Mw 7.6) Meydana Gelen Gerçek Can Kayıpları Ve Yapısal Hasar Değerlerinin Tahmin Edilen Değerler İle Karşılaştırılması. Afyon Kocatepe Univ J Sci Eng 2023;23:1222–34.
13. Shiwua AJ, Rutman Y. Assessment of Seismic Input Energy By Means of New Definition and the Application To Earthquake Resistant Design. Archit Eng 2016;1.
14. Çalım F, Güllü A, Yüksel E. Evaluation of Seismic Input Energy Distribution in Moment Frames. 14th Int Congr Adv Civ Eng 2021:1–6.
15. Manfredi G. Evaluation of seismic energy demand. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2001;30:485–99.
16. Chou C-C, Uang C-M. Establishing absorbed energy spectra-an attenuation approach. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2000;29:1441–55.
17. Hancıoğlu B. Yapıların Deprem Davranışının Enerji Esaslı Analizi. Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, 2009.
18. Decanini LD, Mollaioli F. An energy-based methodology for the assessment of seismic demand. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2001;21:113–37.
19. Erberik A, Sucuoǧlu H. Seismic energy dissipation in deteriorating systems through low-cycle fatigue. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2004;33:49–67.
20. Benavent-Climent A. An energy-based damage model for seismic response of steel structures. Pacific Conf Earthq Eng 2007:1–6.
21. Chai YH. Incorporating low-cycle fatigue model into duration-dependent inelastic design spectra. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2005;34:83–96.
22. Ucar T. Computing input energy response of MDOF systems to actual ground motions based on modal contributions. Earthq Struct 2020;18:263–73.
23. Kostinakis K, Fontara IK, Athanatopoulou AM. Scalar Structure-Specific Ground Motion Intensity Measures for Assessing the Seismic Performance of Structures: A Review. J Earthq Eng 2018;22:630–65.
24. Moustafa A, Takewaki I. Characterization of earthquake ground motion of multiple sequences. Earthq Struct 2012;3:629–47.
25. Kamal M, Inel M. Correlation between ground motion parameters and displacement demands of mid-rise rc buildings on soft soils considering soil-structure-interaction. Buildings 2021;11.
26. Cao V Van, Ronagh HR. Correlation between seismic parameters of far-fault motions and damage indices of low-rise reinforced concrete frames. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2014;66:102–12.
27. Ozmen HB, Inel M. Damage potential of earthquake records for RC building stock. Earthq Struct 2016;10:1315–30.
28. Yang D, Pan J, Li G. Non-structure-specific intensity measure parameters and characteristic period of near-fault ground motions Dixiong. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2009;38:1257–80.
29. Elenas A, Meskouris K. Correlation study between seismic acceleration parameters and damage indices of structures. Eng Struct 2001;23:698–704.
30. Poreddy LR, Pathapadu MK, Navyatha C, Vemuri J, Chenna R. Correlation analysis between ground motion parameters and seismic damage of buildings for near-field ground motions. Nat Hazards Res 2022;2:202–9.
31. SeismoSoft. SeismoSignal-Signal Processing of Strong Motion Data 2021.
32. AFAD. 06 Şubat 2023 Pazarcık (Kahramanmaraş) Mw 7.7 Elbistan (Kahramanmaraş) Mw 7.6 Depremlerine İlişkin Ön Değerlendirme Raporu. 2023.
33. TEC. Turkish Earthquake Code. Ankara, Turkey: 2018.
34. Yang D, Pan J, Li G. Non-structure-specific intensity measure parameters and characteristic period of near-fault ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2009;38:1257–80.
35. Riddell R, Garcia JE. Hysteretic energy spectrum and damage control. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2001;30:1791–816.
36. Akkar S, Özen Ö. Effect of peak ground velocity on deformation demands for SDOF systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2005;34:1551–71.
37. Chen G, Yang J, Liu Y, Kitahara T, Beer M. An energy-frequency parameter for earthquake ground motion intensity measure. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2023;52:271–84.