Issue 54

F. Brandão et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 54 (2020) 66-87; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.54.05

Earthquake, again the Scenario 1 can be considered as the best and for the Non-Stationary Artificial Earthquake, Scenario 2 is shown as the best.

Scenario 3- Percentage of response reduction

Non-Stationary Artificial Earthquake

Loma Prieta Earthquake

L’Aquila Earthquake

Canterbury Earthquake

Story number

D max (%)

ISD (%)

D max (%)

ISD (%)

D max (%)

ISD (%)

D max (%)

ISD (%)

1

50.75

50.75

59.38

59.38

47.22

47.22

64.96

64.96

2

49.47

49.53

58.52

58.25

46.67

46.05

65.79

66.05

3

49.49

49.14

57.55

55.26

45.77

44.88

66.06

66.67

4

49.80

43.88

56.82

54.90

45.27

42.86

66.48

67.51

5

50.17

41.67

56.53

58.10

44.29

40.00

66.82

68.34

6

47.24

40.00

56.80

56.52

43.57

39.36

67.14

67.46

7

42.84

37.00

57.24

53.49

42.67

40.00

67.46

66.01

8

42.11

36.56

57.83

52.63

42.02

43.21

67.86

65.38

9

41.57

36.47

57.44

52.24

41.58

47.22

68.22

65.18

10 63.77 Table 11: Percentage of reduction of the maximum displacements and interstory drifts of the structure under the four earthquakes records regarding uncontrolled structure to Scenario 3. 41.27 35.19 57.29 50.00 41.36 50.00 68.33

Figure 11: Maximum displacement per story for the structure under the four earthquakes records to each scenario.

83