4.7 Article

Towards a reliable seismic assessment of rocking components

Journal

ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
Volume 230, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111673

Keywords

Nonstructural components; Freestanding; Rigid blocks; Rocking; Shake table testing; AC156 protocol

Funding

  1. Italian Department of Civil Protection [DPC-ReLUIS 2019-2021]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The paper explores the reliability of existing shake table testing protocols for assessing the seismic response of freestanding rigid components, highlighting the need to correlate rigid block motion with input features. The study uses numerical analysis to evaluate the dynamic response of unanchored components subjected to base acceleration inputs, ultimately providing recommendations for a reliable assessment of rocking components.
The paper addresses the reliability of the existing shake table testing protocols for assessment of the seismic response of freestanding, i.e. unanchored, components meant as rigid blocks; it is assumed that geometric and boundary conditions lead to rocking without sliding. The criticalities of the available assessment methods are primarily identified by correlating the rigid block motion to the features of the inputs derived according to the existing testing protocols. Numerical analysis of rigid blocks is performed to evaluate the planar dynamic response of a wide range of unanchored components subjected to base acceleration inputs in compliance with the reference protocols and considering a reference set of real strong ground motions (ATC63). The most referenced protocols for acceleration-sensitive components are considered, i.e., ICC-ES AC156 and FEMA 461; a sinusoidal protocol specifically aimed at freestanding (rigid) components is also taken into account. The reliability of the protocols is assessed by extending the structural reliability methods to the specific case. Recommendations towards a reliable assessment of rocking components are finally provided.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available