PSI - Issue 44

L. Navas-Sánchez et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 418–425 L. Navas-Sánchez et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000 – 000

423

6

a p =4.0 for 0.5s< T 1 <1.0s) – this case study-; and a =0.3, b =1.0 and a p =2.5 for T 1 >1s. In general terms, it considers the PGA as the input and provides conservative values. Eq. (6) shows its formulation:

            

 + − −    a a p p 1 ( 1)(1 [

   1

z

]

PGA

 for T aT

+

a

i

2

T aT /

)

h

b

a

i

PGA



   a

      1 1

z

= ( , ) 1

PGA

  for aT T bT

S T z a a

+

(6)

p

i

a

i

h

q

a

b

 + − −    a a p p 1 ( 1)(1 [

z

]

PGA

 for T bT

+

a

i

2

T bT /

)

h

b

a

i

PGA



4. Results for Floor Response Spectra The various predictions of the different code proposals for the case study are graphed in Figure 2, together with the results of the numerical simulations.

Fig. 2. Spectra in X (longitudinal) and Y (transversal) direction for the point A of the case study building (4 th floor).

The numerical solution obtained by Linear THA and considering 30 modes is considered as the reference solution. It provided several peaks for the periods of the modes that characterize the structure, which were concentrated in a series of intervals: 0.34s (2 modes), 0.25s (1 mode), 0.12-0.07s (27 modes). The Floor Spectra Acceleration obtained