Vol.15, No.

4 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION December, 2016

Earthq Eng & Eng Vib (2016) 15: 649-656 DOI:10.1007/s11803-016-0355-8

Study on the effect of ground motion direction on the

response of engineering structure
Sun Menghan1,2, Fan Feng1,2, Sun Baitao3 and Zhi Xudong1,2

1. Key Lab of Structures Dynamic Behavior and Control of the Ministry of Education, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China
2. School of Civil Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China
3. Key Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake
Administration, Harbin 150080, China

Abstract: Due to the randomness of earthquake wave magnitude and direction, and the uncertain direction of strong
axis and weak axis in the construction of engineering structures, the effect of the direction of ground motion on a structure
are studied herein. Ground motion records usually contain three vertical ground motion data, which are obtained by sensors
arranged in accordance with the EW (East -West) direction, NS (South- North) direction and perpendicular to the surface
(z) direction, referring to the construction standard of seismic stations. The seismic records in the EW and NS directions are
converted to Cartesian coordinates in accordance with the rotation of = 0180, and consequently, a countless group of new
ground motion time histories are obtained. Then, the characteristics of the ground motion time history and response spectrum
of each group were studied, resulting in the following observations: (1) the peak and phase of ground motion are changed
with the rotation of direction , so that the direction of the maximum peak ground motion can be determined; (2) response
spectrum values of each group of ground motions change along with the direction , and their peak, predominant period and
declining curve are also different as the changes occur; then, the angle in the direction of the maximum peak value or the
widest predominant period can be determined; and (3) the seismic response of structures with different directions of ground
motion inputs has been analyzed under the same earthquake record, and the results show the difference. For some ground
motion records, such as the Taft seismic wave, these differences are significant. Next, the Lushan middle school gymnasium
structure was analyzed and the calculation was checked using the proposed method, where the internal force of the upper
space truss varied from 25% to 28%. The research results presented herein can be used for reference in choosing the ground
motion when checking the actual damage to structures following earthquakes and explaining the seismic damage. Meanwhile,
it also provides a reference value for research into the most severe ground motion.

Key words: direction of ground motion; structure effect; coordinate transformation; response spectrum

1 Introduction engineering structures has been ongoing for more than

Earthquakes are one of the biggest loads to impact
engineering structures. In the seismic research and
design of structures, how to choose the actual seismic
record as input has been a very important problem in
earthquake engineering. The research on the influence of
the ground motion characteristics and parameters on the
Correspondence to: Fan Feng, Key Lab of Structures Dynamic
Behavior and Control of the Ministry of Education, Harbin
Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China
E-mail: Fanf@hit.edu.cn
a century.
The seismic wave is a mechanical wave caused by
the earths crust impact, which is caused by the plate
impact or mutual extrusion. The ground motion is the
vibration of the soil near the earths surface due to the
propagation of seismic waves. Ground motion includes
three independent translational components and three
independent rotational components (Hu, 2005). Because
of the randomness of earthquakes, the uncertainty of
propagation of seismic waves and other characteristics,
the direction of the seismic wave in the structure is also

PhD; Professor uncertain.

Supported by: National Technology Research and Development
Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China
under Grant No. 2015BAK17B03; National Natural Science
Foundation of China (General Program) under Grant No.
51278152; National Science &Technology Pillar Program
(2015BAK17B06); Program for Innovation Research Team in
China Earthquake Administration
Received March 20, 2016; Accepted September 16, 2016
Xie Lili has put forward the concept of the most
severe ground motion, that is under the premise of the
peak ground motion and site class in line with standard
requirements, the seismic response or the seismic
behavior of a structure tends to be the most dangerous
or the most severe ground motion input (Xie and
Zhai, 2003). Meanwhile, a comprehensive method for
estimating the damage potential of strong ground motion
650 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
has been presented, according to the parameters of
ground motion and displacement ductility and damage
accumulation double parameter failure criterion (Zhai
and Xie, 2002). Therefore, some research for selecting
the most severe ground motion input for structures has
been carried out by several scholars from the shell (Fan
et al., 2004), the bridge (Wang et al., 2007), the dam
(Wu, 2007) and so on.
Previous research on the most severe ground motion
usually has focused on the NS and EW positive direction
input of existing ground motion records to obtain the
structural seismic response with regard to the most severe
ground motion evaluation criterion. However, in practical
engineering applications, at the same epicenter distance
and the same site conditions, for similar structures in
different construction angles with faults, the damage is
also somewhat different; that is, the seismic response
and failure mechanism of similar structures are different
in the same ground motion. So far, some research has
been carried out on large span bridge structure (Wang
et al., 2007), large space structures (Yang et al.,
2008), underground structures (Zhao et al., 2010),
space frame structures (Yang et al., 2013), and so on, to
consider the influence of the input directions of ground
motion on the dynamic response of structures. And there
are some researchers who have carried out some studies
on the angle rotation of the seismic inputs. For example,
the NGA-East project has selected rotated ground
motion intensity measure called RotDnn described
by Boore (Boore, 2010 and Boore et al., 2008). And
some scholars have discussed the seismic motion
time, PGA, PGV and PGD and other ground motion
parameters change for different angles of the 2008
Wenchuan ground motion (Ren et al., 2011). Chapter
4 of reference 17 has investigated how this orientation-
dependence (directionality) should be considered in
the specification of seismic demand in codes of practice
(Damian et al., 2011).
In this paper, the El Centro seismic wave, Taft seismic
wave, Wolong seismic wave in the Wenchuan Ms8.0
earthquake (DEDP, 2008; CNSMNC, 2014) and others
are used as the research object, and new ground motion
are generated by coordinate transformation. The direction
of the most severe ground motion input is determined
by comparing time history vibration characteristics
of ground motions at different angles. Meanwhile, the
finite element model from the Lushan Middle Schools
sports complex building has been established, and a
time history analysis of different ground motion input
directions was carried out to determine the influence of
inputting different directions of ground motion on the
structure. The research results presented herein aim to
provide a reference for the analysis of ideas in selection
of the correct input direction of ground motion while
checking actual earthquake damage, explanation of the
damage mechanism, selection of the most severe ground
motion, and regression of response spectrum in the
seismic code.
Vol.15
2 Ground motion transformation in different
coordinate systems
In general, ground motions recorded by seismic
stations are seismic time history results with three
directions: EW (x direction), NS (y direction), and
perpendicular to the surface (z direction). Among them,
the peak ground motion obtained from the records in
three directions is regarded as the maximum seismic
dynamic value of that point. However, if the horizontal
sensors (collectors) are placed in any two vertical angles
(but not in the EW and NS directions), then another
different set of ground motion records can be obtained.
The coordinate transformation of a set of mutually
perpendicular horizontal strong motion records, which
are obtained by a station, is carried out at any angle.
Figure 1 shows the rectangular coordinate conversion
schematic diagram of the ground motion with any angle
rotation (initially EW and NS directions). Equation
(1) is the new coordinate value after the coordinate
transformation.
x(t ) x(t ) cos y (t ) sin
(1)
y '(t ) y (t ) cos x(t ) sin
In this study, the commonly used Taft seismic
wave has been selected in calculation and analysis
as an example. On July 21, 1952, a 7.3 magnitude
earthquake occurred in California of the western United
States; the record was measured by No. 1095 seismic
station located in the Lincoln School of Kern County,
which was located about 43.5 km from the epicenter.
The rectangular coordinate conversion of the record
was obtained, the seismic record when = 0 (the
original seismic record without rectangular coordinate
conversion) and the seismic record when = 40 (a new
seismic record after rectangular coordinate conversion
by the Eq. (1) ) is compared as shown in Fig. 2. The time
history direction of large (small) ground motions in the
new coordinates is compared with the same ones in the
original coordinates.
Figures 2 (a), (b) are a comparison of new and
original coordinates in seismic acceleration time history.
From Fig. 2(a), when = 40, the maximum peak is t =3.76 s,
and Amax= 212.77 Gal. On the contrary, when = 0o, the
y
y'
x'
x(t
)s
in
t)
a(
y(t
)s
n
) si
in
y(t
) cos
x(t
Fig. 1 Coordinate rotation diagram
No.4 Sun Menghan et al.: Study on the effect of ground motion direction on the response of engineering structure 651

Taft Lincoln School (Soil) (California earthquake Ms7.3) Taft Lincoln School (Soil) (California earthquake Ms7.3)
2 5
= 0 Max
Tn= 0.10 s
4
Acceleration (102 Gal)

Amax=425.3 Gal
1
= 40 Max

Amax (102 Gal)

Tn= 0.10 s
3 Amax=470 Gal
0 = 0 Min
Tn= 0.35 s
2 Amax=376.9 Gal
= 0 Max
-1 time: 3.76 s
= 40 Min
Tn= 0.1 s
Amax=-174.23 Gal Amax=442.2 Gal
1
= 40, Max
-2 time: 3.76 s
Amax=-212.77 Gal
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Time (s) Tn (s)
(a) Comparison of the ground motion in the direction x and x Fig. 3 Comparison of ground motion response spectra of =0o
and =40o
Taft Lincoln School (Soil) (California earthquake Ms7.3)
2
as described above. Consequently, the selection of
maximum ground motion time history of directions has a
Acceleration (102 Gal)

1 great significance on the analysis of existing and newly-

designed engineering structures.
0

-1
-2
0 10 20
Time (s)
(b) Comparison of the ground motion in the direction y and y
Fig. 2 Comparison of the new coordinates rotating 40 and
the original coordinates in time history
maximum peak is t = 3.76 s and Amax= 174 Gal. Similarly
from Fig. 2(b), the peak magnitude of ground motion
and the time of peak value are not the same between the
new and the original coordinates. It can be presumed
that, for any inputting of two new perpendicular
horizontal strong motions with different rotation angles,
the response analysis results of engineering structures
will also be different.
At the same time, two groups of ground motions are
made into seismic response spectra with a damping ratio
of = 5% , as shown in Fig. 3. The figure shows that the
curve shape, peak value, and predominant period of the
response spectra are also different between the original
coordinates ( = 0o) and the new coordinates ( = 40o).
If there is a continuous rotation of Cartesian coordinates
of = 0 90, a series of successively different time
histories and response spectra groups of ground motions
will be obtained. From Fig. 2, it can be seen that the
ground motion records of different directions are
very different. Since the direction of the engineering
structure location is uncertain, and the earthquake fault
is also uncertain for different types of faults and rupture
directions, the response analysis of the structure will be
very different with the different directions of the ground
motion time history inputting load, which is selected
= 0 Min
3 Time history of ground motion with arbitrary
time: 9.15 s angle conversion
Amax=-152.84 Gal
= 40 Min
time: 4.25 s The Wolong seismic wave of the main shock from
Amax=137.86 Gal
the Ms 8.0 Wenchuan earthquake in China and the Taft
30 40 50 60 seismic wave from the California earthquake in the U.S.
are chosen as samples in this study. The time history
changes of ground motion are obtained with the counter
clockwise rotation of Cartesian coordinates, whose
rotation angle s interval is 10o.
In the first 70 seconds of the Wolong seismic wave,
the x' coordinate rotates along = 0 90 and the y'
coordinate rotates along = 90 180, then the time
history curves corresponding to each angle of the
ground motion in 3D graphics are synthesized as shown
in Fig. 4(a). It is seen that there is a significant change in
the time history of ground motion at different angles. As
the rotation angle = 110, the maximum peak value of
the ground motion can reach Amax =1039 Gal. Figure
4(b) shows a comparison of the time history when =
20 and = 110, and the difference between them is
very large. They are the two vertical ground motion time
histories under the new Cartesian coordinates.
From Fig. 4, the maximum acceleration peak value
of the Wolong seismic wave is generated at the angle =
110o, when t = 33 s, and Amax = 1038.55 Gal.
Another example is the Taft seismic wave, which is
often used in structural analysis. As shown in Fig. 5, after
the rotation of the ground motion at the angle = 0180,
the 3D graphics of the ground motion time history is
obtained. The graph shows that the maximum peak value
of ground motion is Amax = 212.78 Gal, when =170o.
And the maximum peak value of the original Taft ground
motion is Amax = 174.23 Gal in the x direction.
Table 1 shows a comparison of the acceleration time
histories of the two ground motions in angle, time and the
652 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.15

Wolong Strong Motion Station (Soil) (Wenchuan earthquake Ms8.0) Table 1 Comparison of the maximum peak in new and
time = 33.005 s original coordinates
= 110 Max
Amax= 1038.55 Gal
1000
Seismic Amax PD
800
Coordinate S
600 wave (Gal) (%)
Accelerate (Gal)

400
200
Wolong original 90o 33.005 957.7004 8.44
0
-200
(y)
-400 200 new 110o 33.005 1038.553
-600 150
100
-800 (Degree)
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0
50
Taft original 0o 3.76 174.24 22.1
Time (s) (x)
(a) Ground motion time history of Wolong seismic wave in 3D new 40o 3.76 212.78
graphics as =0o180o
Note: is rotation angle; S is the time of peak value; Amaxis the
Wolong Strong Motion Station (Soil) (Wenchuan earthquake Ms8.0) peak value of acceleration; PD is phase difference
1.2
= 0 Max
time = 33.005s
0.8 Amax=957.70 Gal maximum acceleration peak value. For Wolong ground
Acceleration (103 Gal)

= 110 Max
time = 33.005s
motion, maximum acceleration peak value with rotation
0.4 Amax=1038.55 Gal is greater than the original value by about 8.44%. For
the Taft ground motion, the maximum acceleration peak
0 value with rotation is greater than the original value by
about 22.1%. Thus it can be seen that the uncertainties
-0.4 in ground motion direction has a significant influence
on engineering structures and further research is
0.8
needed, especially for post earthquake reconnaissance
20 30 50 4060 70 80 to determine the earthquake damage mechanism of long
Time (s) and large structures , and if the actual ground motion
Wolong Strong Motion Station (Soil) (Wenchuan earthquake Ms8.0) recorded in the vicinity is used, the effect of the direction
1.2 of the ground motion on structures.
= 0 Min
Time = 32.79 s
0.8 Amax= 652.851 Gal
Acceleration (103 Gal)

= 110 Max
Time = 54.09 s
4 Response spectrum of different ground
0.4 Amax=-568.911 Gal motion with arbitrary angle conversion
0 From Section 3, it is known that any earthquake
recorded at different stations will be changed and to be
-0.4 new after coordinate conversion with different angles.
Similarly, the new vibration response spectrum of
0.8
different angles through calculation also has a significant
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 difference in peak, width and other characteristics. As
Time (s) in the case study of the Wolong seismic wave in the
(b) Ground motion time history of Wolong seismic wave as =0o Wenchuan earthquake, Fig. 6 shows the 3D graphics
and =110o of the seismic response spectrum of the ground motion
Fig. 4 Wolong seismic wave time history 3D graphics and recorded at Wolong with an angle rotation of = 0180
comparison of the maximum time history and the mini- in the rectangular coordinate, and a damping ratio of
mum time history =5%.
As shown in Fig. 6, when =30, the response
Taft Lincoln School (Soil) (California earthquake Ms7.3)
spectrum peak value becomes the smallest one and
200 increases along with the angle , and the width of the
150 response spectrum also increases. When = 0 and
100 90o , the response spectrum correspond to the original
Accelerate (Gal)

50
0
coordinate x and y directions.
-50 Through the analysis of the Wenchuan earthquake
-100 Time = 3.76s
: 40 degree
(DEDP, 2008), Lushan earthquake (CNSMNC, 2014),
-150 Amax: -212.8 Gal
California earthquake and dozens of other seismic
-200 200
-250 100 records, it is seen that the angle max time history of
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)
12 14 16 18 20 (Degree) the maximum seismic time history is not consistent
with the angle max response spectrum of the maximum
Fig. 5 Ground motion time history of Taft seismic wave in 3D
response spectrum. In other words, max time history
graphics as =0180o
No.4 Sun Menghan et al.: Study on the effect of ground motion direction on the response of engineering structure 653

max response spectrum. In Section 5, the influence of the
maximum time history input and the maximum response
spectrum time history input on structures is discussed.
Figure 7 shows the seismic response spectrum 3D
graphics of the Taft earthquake wave with a rotation
= 0180 in the rectangular coordinate conversion,
and a damping ratio of =5%. Along with the change
of coordinate rotation angle, the peak of the response
spectrum and the width of the predominant period will
also change.
5 Practical example analysis
In this study, the Lushan middle school gymnasium,
Table 2 Finite element model unit, material parameters and constitutive model
Model
(Num.)
Upper space truss
which was destroyed in the Lushan earthquake on April
20, 2013, is selected as an example to verify the proposed
method. The Taft seismic wave and Lushan earthquake
Feixian seismic waves (Yang et al., 2008) were used with
the original seismic records in the x, y direction, and the
time history of the maximum ground motion direction
or the time history of the maximum response spectrum
direction as x', y', z input to calculate and analyze. In
the above calculation, the peak of the maximum seismic
wave record of the original coordinate and the rotational
coordinate system were inputted along with the structure.
Figure 8 shows a finite element simplified model of
the Lushan middle school gymnasium. The model unit
selection and material parameters are shown as in Table 2
and Table 3. In this study, the internal forces of weak
Unit
Unit type Material Material constitutive
1080 Link180 Q235 BKIN follow-up intensified model

Lower support beam 171 Fiber beam element C50 Single axis and double segment
structure (concrete beam188, steel linear constitutive
bar reinf264)
column 122 Q235 BKIN follow-up intensified model

plate 43 Shell181 C50 Single axis and double segment

linear constitutive

Response spectrum of Wolong Strong Motion Station (Wenchuan earthquake) [E104.0 N31.3] Response spectrum of Taft Lincoln School (soil) (California earthquake Ms7.3)

Tn: 0.25 s Tn: 0.1 s

degree: 110 : 40 degree
Amax: 3209 Gal Amax: 470 Gal
500
3500
3000 400

300
a (Gal)
a (Gal)

2000
200 200
200
1000
100 100
100
0 (Degree) 0 (Degree)
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0
Tn (s) Tn (s)

Fig. 6 3D graphics response spectrum of Wolong seismic wave Fig.7 Seismic response spectrum of Taft earthquake wave in
of =0o180o 3D graphics of =0o180o

(a) Integrated finite element model (b) Finite element model of the upper space truss
Fig. 8 3D finite element modeling of Lushan middle school gymnasium
654 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.15

structural members, which are the internal forces of the compressive stress in the upper space truss unit of the
upper space truss structure, were selected for display. Lushan middle school gymnasium of =0 and =40
The Taft seismic wave selection is shown in Fig. 2, with three direction ground motion input. There are 1080
which are the ground motions in the x, y and z directions upper space truss units, and the stress contrast of each
in the original coordinates of = 0, and the ground unit in two working conditions is shown along with the
motion time history in x', y' and z directions of the direction of the horizontal axis. It can be seen from the
maximum ground motion of = 40 with three direction graph that, the tensile stress and compressive stress of the
input. unit are quite different in the two conditions. Comparing
Figure 9 shows a comparison of tensile stress and the maximum tensile stress of =0 in original coordinate

-1.0 -2
= 0
= 0
Bar number=1079
Bar number=338

Compressive stress (108 Pa)

-0.8 Max stress=-676956 Pa
Compressive (106 Pa)

Max stress=-12.8 MPa

= 40
= 50
Bar number=1077
-0.6 Bar number=338
Max stress=-846570.3 Pa
Max stress=-16.1 MPa
-1
-0.4

-0.2

0
0 250 500 750 1000 0
0 500 1000
Bar number
Bar number
Fig. 9 Comparison of compressive stresses of each unit in the (a) Comparison of unit compressive stress of =50o and original
upper space truss structure seismic wave input with the biggest response spectrum

-2
Lushan Feixian Strong Motion Station (soil) (Yaan earthquake Ms7.0) = 0
Bar number=338
Compressive stress (108 Pa)

5.0 Max stress=-12.8 MPa

= 70
Bar number=338
Acceleration (102 Gal)

= 0 Max Max stress=-15.0 MPa

2.5 time = 33.1 s
Amax = 356.99 Gal -1
= 50 Max
0 time = 32.475 s
Amax=-382.53Gal
= 70 Max
time = 32.745 s
-2.5 Amax= 409.68 Gal
0
0 500 1000
Bar number
-5.0
20 30 40 50 (b) Comparison of unit compressive stress of =70o and original
Time (s) seismic wave input with the biggest time history
(a) Seismic time history
-2
Lushan Feixian Strong Motion Station (soil) (Yaan earthquake Ms7.0) = 70
Bar number=338
1.6
Compressive stress (108 Pa)

Max stress=-15.0 MPa

= 0 Max
Tn: 0.15 s = 50
Amax = 1327.31 Gal Bar number=338
1.2 Max stress=-16.1 MPa
= 50 Max
Amax (102 Gal)

Tn: 0.15 s -1
Amax= 1481.80 Gal
= 70 Max
0.8 Tn: 0.15 s
Amax= 1424.44 Gal

0.4
0
0 500 1000
Bar number
0 (c) Comparison of unit compressive stress of =70o and =50o
0 1 2 3
Tn (s) with the biggest response spectrum
(b) Seismic time history Fig. 11 Comparison of unit compressive stress among = 0o/50o/70o
Fig. 10 Comparison of =0o/50o/70o from Feixian Station in Feixian Station (medium earthquake)
No.4 Sun Menghan et al.: Study on the effect of ground motion direction on the response of engineering structure
with that of =40, it can be seen that when =40, the
seismic time history dynamic stress is increased between
25% and 28%.
In this research, in order to study the influence of
the maximum direction of response spectrum record and
time history record value on the structure, at the same
time, considering structural elastic and elastic-plastic
internal force changing with the input of large and
medium earthquakes, the record of the Feixian station
near Lushan county shown in Fig. 10 was selected to
verify the inputting of three types of working conditions
as follows. (1) The original seismic record Amax=357.00
Gal (large earthquake), was reduced to 1/4 as input. That
is, Amax=89.25 Gal (medium earthquake). (2) The original
seismic record was made a rotation of =50, that is of
the direction of maximum response spectrum value of
Amax=382.53 Gal (large earthquake), then the record was
reduced to 1/4 to input. (3) The original seismic record
was made a rotation of =70, that is the direction of
maximum time history value of Amax=409.68 Gal (large
earthquake), then the record was reduced to 1/4 to input.
Figure 11 (a) shows a comparison of the compressive
stress of the upper space truss structure unit in the elastic
stage, under the three directions ground motion input
from the Lushan middle school gymnasium of rotation
=0 and =50 when its response spectrum becomes
the biggest one. Figure 11 (b) shows a comparison of
the compressive stress of the upper space truss structure
unit, under the three directions of ground motion input
of rotation =0 and =70 when its time history is
the largest. Figure 11 (c) shows a comparison of the
compressive stress of the upper space truss structure
unit, under the three directions of ground motion input
of rotation =50 and =70 when its response spectrum
is the largest.
From Fig.11 of the compressive stress comparison
of the three structural units, it can be seen that whether
the record of the maximum response spectrum value
or the maximum time history value, the impact of the
internal force of the structure is greater than that of the
original record. Furthermore, it also can be found that
the impact of the internal force of the former is greater
than the latter for the record with the maximum response
spectrum value and the maximum time history value,
though the acceleration peak of the former is less than
that of the latter; dozens of seismic records have been
checked and the results are consistent.
At the same time, the checking calculation of the
three types of seismic input conditions for structures in
large earthquakes has also been taken. The load becomes
much larger, and many units of the structure have gone
into the elastic-plastic state, causing the internal forces
of the units to be redistributed. The difference between
the larger internal forces is reduced, and the difference
between the smaller internal forces is increased.
Nevertheless, the structural time history response of the
maximum response spectrum is still the largest (shown
in Fig.12).
655
4
= 70
Bar number=1006
Max stress=29.06 MPa
Tensile stress (108 Pa)
3 = 50
Bar number=1072
Max stress=30.26 MPa
2
1
0
0 500 1000
Bar number
Fig. 12 Comparison of unit compressive stress of =50o/70o
from Feixian Station (large earthquake)
6 Conclusions
In this study, selected seismic ground motions
recorded by stations have been made coordinate
transformations, and the characteristics of the ground
motions in the new coordinates are studied. Several
significant results have been obtained as follows:
(1) The seismic time history 3D graphics distribution
map of different angles is obtained by the angle rotation
=0o~180o in the rectangular coordinates conversion
of the ground motions, which are recorded at stations
located in the EW and NS directions. From the graph, it
is seen that the peak and the phase of the ground motion
are different in different angles, so that the maximum
seismic time history value and its corresponding
direction can be obtained.
(2) From the 3D graphics of the response spectrum
with a damping ratio of =5% after different angle
conversions of ground motion time history, it can be seen
that the response spectrum peak, predominant period
and value of the declining part of the response spectrum
at different time histories from different angles are also
different.
(3) The finite element modeling of the actual structure
of the Lushan middle school gymnasium in Yaan
earthquake is carried out. The difference of the structure
internal force between the original seismic record input
and the record input of the maximum ground motion
direction after coordinate conversion has been studied.
The results show that the direction of ground motion has
a great influence on structures.
(4) The response of structure has been checked with
the record input of the time history of the angle of the
maximum response spectrum and the record input of the
biggest time history, whose results show that, though
the time history peak value of the former is less than
that of the latter, the influence of the internal force and
deformation of the structure is greater than that of the
latter. Dozens of seismic records verify that this is a
general rule.
The research results from this study will have an
656 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
important reference value when checking the failure
mechanism of actual structures in earthquakes and
selection of the maximum ground motion. Meanwhile,
it also has a reference value on the regression of the
response spectrum curve in the seismic code.
Reference
Boore DM (2010), Orientation-independent,
Nongeometric-mean Measures of Seismic Intensity from
Two Horizontal Components of Motion, Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 100(4): 1830-1835.
Boore DM and Atkinson GM (2008) Ground-motion
Prediction Equations for the Average Horizontal 99
Component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at
Spectral Periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s, Earthquake
Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
24(1): 99138.
China National Strong Motion Network Center (2014),
Report on Strong Earthquake Motion Records in China
(2014), 17(1), Beijing: Seismological Press. (in Chinese)
Grant DN, Padilla D and Greening PD (2011),
Orientation Dependence of Earthquake Ground Motion
and Structural Response, Matja Dolek, Protection
of Built Environment Against Earthquake, Chapter 4,
Berlin: Springer Netherlands.
Department of Earthquake Disaster Prevention, China
Earthquake Administration (2008), Report on Strong
Earthquake Motion Records in China, 12(1), Beijing:
Seismological Press. (in Chinese)
Fan Feng, Qian Hongliang and Xie Lili (2004),
Applications of the Severest Ground Motion to
Anti-seismic Design for Reticulated Shells, World
Earthquake Engineering, 19(3): 1721. (in Chinese)
Hu Yuxian (2005), Earthquake Engineering, 2nd ed,
Beijing: Seismological Press. (in Chinese)
Li Quanwang, Fan Jiansheng and Nie Jianguo (2010),
Effect of Directional Uncertainty of Earthquake
Ground Motion on Structural Responses, Engineering
Vol.15
Mechanics, 27(12): 135140. (in Chinese)
Li Xiaozhen, Hong Qinye, Lei Hujun and Liu Zhenjie
(2015), Effect of Input Directions of Seismic Ground
Motion Seismic Responses of a Railway Extradosed
Bridge, Bridge Construction, 45(1): 2632. (in Chinese)
Ren Yefei, Dai Zhiyong and Wen Ruizhi (2011), A New
Method for Computing the Orientation-independent
Parameters of Horizontal Ground Motion, World
Earthquake Engineering, 27(3): 134-141. (in Chinese)
Wang Tao, Guo Endong, Zhang Lina and Hu Yuwen
(2007), The Critical Direction of the Earthquake Input
for Dynamic Analysis of a Long Span Cable-stayed
Bridge, World Earthquake Engineering, 23(4): 107
111. (in Chinese)
Wu Zhaoying (2007), Study of the Worst Seismic
Motion Input for Earth-dam Seismic Stability under
the Oblique Incidence Condition, Harbin: Institute of
Engineering Mechanics. (in Chinese)
Xie Lili and Zhai Changhai (2003), Study on the
Severest Real Ground Motion for Seismic Design and
Analysis, Acta Seismologica Sinica, 25(3): 250261.
(in Chinese)
Yang Hong, Yang Xiaoyi and Huang Hao (2013),
Effects of Seismic Wave Input Angles on Nonlinear
Response Characteristics of Spatial Frames, Industrial
Construction, 43(7): 4351. (in Chinese)
Yang Qingshan, Liu Wenhua and Tian Yuji (2008),
Response Analysis of National Stadium under Special
Variable Earthquake Ground Motions, China Civil
Engineering Journal, 41(2): 3541. (in Chinese)
Zhai Changhai and Xie Lili (2002), A Comprehensive
Method for Estimating and Comparing the Damage
Potential of Strong Ground Motion, Earthquake
Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 22(5): 17. (in
Chinese)
Zhao Baoyou, Ma Zhenyue and Ding Xiuli (2010),
Seismic Response of a Large Underground Rock
Cavern Groups Considering Different Incident Angles of
Earthquake Waves, Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Engineering, 29(Supp.1): 33953402. (in Chinese)