Abstract
JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2022.2045999 Study on seismic performance of base-isolated and base-fixed Ancient timber buildings in hanging-wall/footwall Earthquakes a,b b,c Tong Ou and Dayang Wang a b GuangDong Architectural Design & Research Institute Co., Ltd, GuangZhou, GuangDong, P.R. China; Guangdong Engineering Research Centre for Metal Cladding and Roofing System (GDERC-MCRS), GuangZhou, GuangDong, P.R. China; School of Civil Engineering, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, GuangDong, P.R. China ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 6 April 2021 This study aims to quantify effects of hanging-wall/footwall fault parameters on dynamic Accepted 18 February 2022 responses of base-isolated and base-fixed ancient timber buildings. Finite element models of a real timber building with and without isolation technology are first built and verified by KEYWORDS comparison with existing studies. Fitting analysis of three typical models, Abrahamson-Silva- Fault parameters; hanging- Kamai, Campbell-Bozorgnia and Chiou-Youngs models, as well as 622 recorded ground wall/footwall effect; ancient motions, is then conducted to determine the optimal model to generate earthquake waves. timber structure; isolation Finally, effects of hanging-wall/footwall fault parameters on seismic performance of the based- isolated and base-fixed buildings are investigated. The results show that the Abrahamson-Silva -Kamai model achieves the best fitting results with the lowest computational errors. Isolation technology can improve seismic performance for ancient timber buildings with different ages. Isolation effectiveness of the base-isolated models decreases with increasing building ages in different fault parameters. The isolation effectiveness remains unchanged with different fault dip angles in footwall earthquakes, whereas it decreases with the increase of fault dip angles in hanging-wall earthquakes at the same site distance. The structural isolation effectiveness in hanging-wall earthquakes is better than that in footwall earthquakes. 1. Introduction including good earthquake resistance due to the excel- lent strength-to-density ratio and the ductility of joints Dynamic responses of near-fault ground motions have with metal fasteners, providing limited inertia forces received much attention in recent years due to the and good energy dissipation, respectively (Oudjene obvious impulsive effects on structures (Sun et al. and Khelifa 2009). But, as time goes by, it is inevitable 2020; Bilgin and Hysenlliu 2020; Güllü and that the ancient timber structure will be damaged to Karabekmez 2017; Todorov and Muntasir 2021). The a certain extent under baptism of time and various significant hanging-wall/footwall effect may aggravate natural and man-made disasters. As a result, the mate- the damage of structures (Sapkota et al. 2013). The rial and structural properties will deteriorate and the hanging-wall ground motion has large acceleration risk of damage under the earthquake will increase. For peaks and high input energy, which amplifies the example, the Yunyan Temple with a timber structure is ground motion during propagation (Abrahamson damaged with roof failure and overhanging wooden 1996). Many studies can be found focusing on the beams broken in Wenchuan earthquake (Jia, Liu, and effects of near-fault ground motions on civil structures, Ye 2014), and the timber Changu Temple is collapsed such as buildings, tunnels and bridges (Aghamolaei in Yushu earthquake (Huang 2017). et al. 2021; Xie and Sun 2021; Abd-Elhamed and Obviously, although existing studies highlight the Mahmoud 2019; Faherty et al. 2022; Bedon, Rinaldin, importance of near-fault ground motion effects on the and Frgiacomo 2015; Bedon et al. 2019; Shehata, above-mentioned structural responses, investigations Mohamed, and Tarek 2014; Hadianfard and Sedaghat of the hanging-wall/ footwall effect on ancient timber 2013). In ancient China, most architectures are timber structures are very limited, especially for those base- buildings of towers, temples, palaces and other forms, isolated ancient timbers. Many works should be done accounting for more than 50% of the total ancient to enrich the research results of this field so as to architectures (Hu, Han, and Yu 2011a). Timber, as provide effective control strategies for the safety of a construction material, is worth studying for its ancient wooden buildings under earthquakes. mechanical properties in earthquakes (Humbert et al. Therefore, it is meaningful to explore the specific seis- 2014). Timber structures present many qualities, mic responses and control effectiveness of ancient CONTACT Dayang Wang wadaya2015@gzhu.edu.cn School of Civil Engineering, , Guangzhou University, GuangDong, GuangZhou, 510006, P.R. China © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group on behalf of the Architectural Institute of Japan, Architectural Institute of Korea and Architectural Society of China. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 2 T. OU AND D. WANG timbers with and without base-isolated technology in integral stiffness and mass of the foundation base are hanging-wall/footwall earthquakes. An optimal model far higher than those of the upper tower body and the of generating hanging-wall/footwall earthquake waves roof, which therefore can be ignored in the computa- is provided based on fitting analysis results of 622 tional model. recorded ground motions. The main aim of this study Commercial analysis software SAP2000 (version 16) is to explore whether base-isolated technology can (SAP2000 Version 16, 2013) is used to establish the improve structural seismic performance in near fault finite element model of the tower body and the roof. earthquakes and to clear the corresponding parameter The wooden beam and column are modeled by frame influence laws. Based on the research results, better beam elements. Mortise-tenon joints are adopted to seismic methods and isolation measures can be sug- connect structural members of beams, columns and gested to protect ancient timber buildings in future trusses, which are actually a kind of semi-rigid and unpredictable hanging-wall/footwall earthquakes. semi-articulated joint. The simulation of semi-rigid node in SAP2000 can be realized by end release of line element. The end release includes 3 translational 2. Finite element model and verification degrees of freedom (axial load, principal axis shear and sub-axis shear) and 3 rotational degrees of freedom 2.1. Numerical modeling (torque, principal axis bending moment and sub-axis Xi’an Bell Tower, a representative ancient timber build- bending moment). When the end part is released, the ing, is adopted as an object of investigation of this spring stiffness values of the starting point and the end study. This two-storey tower of the Bell tower is built point are defined to partially constrain the node, so as in 1384 and has a total height of 36 m and an area of to achieve the effect of simulating semi-rigid node 1377.4 m , as shown in Figure 1(a). The tower has (Yokoyama et al. 2009). Material elastic modulus and a square plane with the dimension of 35.5 m. The the connection stiffness of mortise-tenon joints tower is considered as the largest and most complete between the beam and the column can be calculated ancient timber structure in China (Wang and Meng based on the literature (Wang and Meng 2017), as 2017). Three main components compose the Bell shown in Table 2. Therefore, the three-dimensional tower, namely, the foundation base, the tower body finite element model of the Bell tower can be estab- and the roof, in which the tower body is the wood lished, as shown in Figure 1(c), in which the column frame structural system. Specific parameters of the bottom of the wooden frame is fixedly connected. cross-sections of the beams and columns are shown Besides, it is worth mentioning that the density of in Table 1. The corresponding section numbers of the wood material, 410 kg/m3, is assumed to be constant beams and columns are shown in Figure 1(b). The for all the investigated models since the wood density tower body and the roof are primary concerns of this is found to be increased by only 2.05% for 600 years study, as the foundation base is a huge masonry struc- (Jia, Liu, and Ye 2014). The wall and roof loads are tural platform with passageways through it, on which modeled as masses and uniformly loaded on the the tower body and the roof are supported. Obviously, beam-column joints. The total mass of one beam- L-3 L-3 L-2 L-3 L-3 L-1 L-1 Z-2 Z-1 Z-1 Z-2 L-2 L-1 L-1 Z-1 Z-2 Z-2 Z-1 4320 7940 4320 (a) Xi’an Bell Tower (b) Structurl geometry (b) Three-dimensional model Figure 1. Xi’an Bell Tower and the corresponding numerical model. (a) Xi’an Bell Tower, (b) structural geometry and (b) three- dimensional model Table 1. Member cross-section of the ancient timber building. Type L-1 (mm) L-2 (mm) L-3 (mm) Z-1 (mm) Z-2 (mm) Shape Rectangle Rectangle Rectangle Circle Circle Dimension 300 × 700 300 × 800 200 × 300 500 (diameter) 700 (dDiameter) 8500 6300 2200 1976 18976 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 3 Table 2. Spring stiffness of mortise-tenon joint and wooden material properties. Parameters Symbol M640 M500 M300 M100 Adjustment coefficients – 68% 75% 85% 95% 7 7 7 7 Spring stiffness K (N/m) 1.55 × 10 1.71 × 10 1.94 × 10 2.17 × 10 8 8 8 8 of mortise-tenon joint K (N/m) 1.88 × 10 2.08 × 10 2.36 × 10 2.63 × 10 7 7 7 7 K (N/m) 1.55 × 10 1.71 × 10 1.94 × 10 2.17 × 10 8 8 8 8 K (N·m/rad) 5.66 × 10 6.24 × 10 7.08 × 10 7.91 × 10 9 9 10 10 Elastic modulus E (Pa) 7.51 × 10 8.30 × 10 9.41 × 10 1.05 × 10 9 10 8 9 of wood material E (Pa) 7.51 × 10 8.30 × 10 9.41 × 10 1.05 × 10 8 8 8 9 E (Pa) 3.76 × 10 4.15 × 10 4.70 × 10 5.26 × 10 Note: M640, M500, M300 and M100 represent models with ages of 640, 500, 300 and 100 years. column joint is 6850 kg, which is the same as the ancient timber buildings with different construction reference (Meng 2009). More details of introducing times and the connection stiffness of mortise-tenon the establishment of the finite element model, such joints between beam and column are calculated, as as element selection, constitutive model and para- also shown in Table 2, in which the spring stiffness of meter design, can be found in previous research stu- the mortise-tenon joints can be calculated based the dies of the author’s team (Huang 2017). equations of Hu, Han, and Yu (2011b). It is known that there are many ancient timber buildings in China and also around the world. 2.2. Model verification A common knowledge on ancient timber buildings is that their mechanical properties are affected by time, The dynamic characteristics of the Bell tower are com- indicating that considering the influence of aging on pared with the results of existing literature mechanical properties is necessary. To investigate the studies (Meng 2009; Han 2011; Wen 2015) of the Bell influence of construction time on structural responses tower. The comparison results are shown in Table 3. of ancient timber buildings in near-fault ground Figure 2 shows the first three mode shapes. It can be motions, four computational models that are 100, seen that the first-order and second-order frequencies 300, 500 and 640 years old, respectively, are consid- of the Bell tower are around 0.95 Hz, and the third- ered, in which the age of 640 years represents the real order frequencies are between 1.0 Hz and 1.2 Hz. The building time of the Bell tower. The timber perfor- maximum error in comparison to the three literature mance adjustment factor provided by Technical code studies is 2.16% for the first-order, 1.90% for for maintenance and strengthening of ancient timber the second-order and 15.56% for the third-order. buildings (GB/50165-1993) is used to consider the However, the first two models are the main control aging influence, namely, the adjustment factors of models with great modal participation coefficients, 95%, 85%, 75% and 68% for the corresponding ages namely, 86% for the first modal with X-direction trans- of 100, 300, 500 and 640 years. According to the position and 99% for the second modal with adjustment factors, material elastic modulus of the Y-direction transposition as shown in Table 3. It can Table 3. Verification the model of Bell Tower computer results (Unit: Hz). Literature (Meng 2009) Literature (GB/50165-1993) Literature (Wen 2015) This study Modal Frequency Error Frequency Error Frequency Error Frequency UX UY First-order 0.9628 2.16% 0.9604 1.91% 0.9501 0.82% 0.9424 0.86 0.00 Second-order 0.9628 0.54% 0.9864 1.90% 0.9781 1.04% 0.9680 0.00 0.99 Third-order 1.2251 15.56% 1.0008 5.59% 1.2000 13.20% 1.0601 0.14 0.00 Note: Error = (This study – Literature)/This study × 100%. UX/UY are modal participation coefficients. st nd rd Figure 2. The first three mode shapes. (a) 1 mode (X-Translation), (b) 2 mode (Y-Translation) and (b) 3 mode (Torsion) 4 T. OU AND D. WANG then be found that the finite element model of the Bell proposed with a magnitude range of [3.0, 8.5] and tower established in this study is reasonable and can a fault distance of [0, 300 km] and expressed as be used for the following discussion. ln PGAðY< pga; t< 0:25Þ ln Y ¼ f þ f þ f þ f þ f þ f þ f (2) mag dis fit hng site sed hyp þf þ f ðotherwiseÞ dip atn 3. Fitting of hanging-wall/footwall ground where Y is the acceleration peak or acceleration motion response spectrum value, f is the magnitude term, mag 3.1. Optimization of fitting models f is the distance term, f is the style of the faulting dis fit term, f is the hanging wall term, f is the shallow hng site The NGA (Next-Generation Attenuation) program, site response term, f is the vasin response term, f sed hyp published by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering is the hypocentral depth term, f is the fault dip term dip Research Center (PEER) in conjunction with the U.S. and f is the anelastic attenuation term. atn Geological Survey (USGS) and the Southern California Considering the same synthesized influence with Earthquake Center (SECE), represents the frontier the CB model, the CY model (Chiou et al. 2010) is research on the ground motion attenuation relation- proposed with a magnitude range of [3.0, 8.5] and ship. Based on the NGA program, three typical mod- a fault distance of [0, 300 km] and expressed as els of fitting hang-wall-footwall ground motions, Abrahamson-Silva-Kamai (ASK) model (Abrahamson S30j lnðy Þ ¼ lnðy Þþ F þϕ ðmin lnð Þ; 0Þ ij refij HW et al., 2014), Campbell-Bozorgnia (CB) model ϕ ðminðV ;1130Þ 360Þ ϕ ð1130 360Þ (Campbell and Bozorgnia 2014) and Chiou-Youngs 3 S30 3 þϕ ðe e Þ (CY) model (Chiou et al. 2010), are used to describe y þ phi refij 4 ΔZ =ϕ 1:0 j 6 lnð Þþϕ ð1 e Þþ η þ ε ; the ground motion attenuation relationship. j 5 i Comparison among the three fitting models is con- (3) ducted to determine the optimal fitting model of where dependent variable y is the ground motion hanging wall/footwall ground motions. ij amplitude for earthquake i at station j, variable y is Considering the attenuation relationship between refij the population median for the reference condition the acceleration response spectrum and the seismic V = 1130 m/s, random variables η (between-event magnitude and fault distance, the ASK model is pro- S30 i residual or event term) and ε (within-event residual) posed in the literature (Abrahamson et al., 2014) with represent the two modeling errors that contribute to a magnitude range of [3.0, 8.5] and a fault distance of the variability of predicted motion. φ , φ , φ , φ , φ [0 km, 300 km] and expressed as 1 2 3 4 5 and φ are correction factors. lnSaðgÞ ¼ f ðM; R Þþ F f ðMÞþ F f ðMÞ 1 RUP RV 7 NM 8 Based on Equations (1) – (3), 622 natural ground þ F f ðCR Þþ f ðsa ; V Þ AS 11 JB 5 1180 S30 motions from NGA database, including 327 hanging- þ F f ðR ; R ; R ; R ; W; dip; Z ; MÞ HW 4 JB RUP x y0 TOR wall earthquakes and 295 footwall earthquakes, are fitted þ f ðZ Þþ f ðZ ; V Þ 6 TOR 10 1:0 S30 using the above ASK, CB and CY models, respectively. þ regionalðV ; R Þ; S30 RUP Random fitting error y and its mean value (MV) u and (1) standard deviation (SD) σ, defined in Equations (4) – (6), where f , f , f , f , f , f , f and f are the basic form, 1 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 respectively, are adopted to determine the optimal hanging-wall/footwall model, site response model, model of fitting hanging-wall/footwall ground motions, depth-to-top of the rupture model, reverse fault model, y ¼ lnð Þ ¼ lnðy Þ lnðy Þ; (4) normal fault model, soil depth model and aftershock i E R scaling model, respectively. M is the moment magnitude, R is the rupture distance and R is the horizontal RUP x distance from the top edge of rupture. W is the down- u ¼ y ; (5) dip rupture width, and Z is the depth-to-top of rup- i¼1 TOR ture. R is the Joyner-Boore distance. CR is the after- JB JB sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi shocks distance. sa is the Median peak spectral 1180 N 2 ½y u� i¼1 acceleration for V = 1180 m/s, and V is the shear- σ ¼ ; (6) S30 S30 wave velocity over the top 30 m. F , F , F and F are RV NM AS HW reverse faulting earthquakes, normal faulting earth- where y and y are the estimated value and real value. E R quakes, aftershocks and hanging wall sites, respectively. N is the earthquake number. Considering the synthesized parameter influence of Figure 3 shows the distribution of the random error site reaction and source depth models, basin effects, of the 622 hanging wall/footwall ground motions cal- hanging-wall/footwall factors, fault dip models, etc., culated by ASK, CB and CY models, respectively. the CB model (Campbell and Bozorgnia 2014) is Table 4 shows the mean value and standard deviation JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 5 Figure 3. Random fitting error of the 622 earthquakes with ASK, CB and CY models. (a) ASK model (T = 0.3 s), (b) CB model (T = 0.3 s), (c) CY model (T = 0.3 s), (d) ASK model (T = 3 s), (e) CB model (T = 3 s) and (f) CY model (T = 3 s) of the random errors. It can be found that the random examination on the mean value and standard devia- errors are all within the range of −2.5–2.5, and most of tion of the random errors is performed, it can be found them are within the range of −1–1, indicating that the that the fitting result of the ASK model is superior to three models can fit the hanging-wall/footwall ground that of the CB and CY models because the results of the motions with certain accuracy. However, if further ASK model have the minimum mean and standard Table 4. Mean value (MV) and standard deviation (SD) of the random fitting error. T = 0.3 s T = 3 s Hanging wall Footwall Hanging wall Footwall Model Number MV SD Number MV SD Number MV SD Number MV SD ASK 327 0.105 0.742 295 0.165 1.569 327 0.047 0.726 295 0.061 1.235 CB 327 0.206 0.851 295 0.357 2.659 327 0.135 0.856 295 0.159 2.356 CY 327 0.237 0.888 295 0.465 2.358 327 0.164 0.895 295 0.185 2.226 6 T. OU AND D. WANG deviation among the three models. For example, as words, eight site distances (−40 km, −30 km, −20 km, shown in Table 4, the mean values of the 327 hanging- −10 km, 10 km, 20 km, 30 km and 40 km), three wall ground motions are 0.105 for T = 0.3s and 0.047 earthquake magnitudes (M6, M7 and M8), five soil for T = 3s, which is less than half of that of CB and CY shear-wave velocities (200 mm/s, 400 mm/s, models, indicating that the fitting error calculated by 600 mm/s, 800 mm/s and 1000 mm/s) and five the ASK model shows the best, followed by the CB fault dip angles (10°, 30°, 50°, 70° and 90°) are model, and the CY model is the worst. Similar results adapted. All hanging-wall/footwall ground motions can also be found for the mean values of the 295 considering the above four parameters are fitted footwall ground motions. Therefore, the ASK model is using the ASK model. Table 5 summarizes the determined to be the optimal model for generating ground motions. the hanging-wall/footwall ground motions of this As shown in Table 5, a total of 104 hanging-wall study. /footwall ground motions are fitted. The seismic dura- tion of all the ground motions is designed to be the same, which is 40s with an interval of 0.02s. Figure 4 3.2. Ground motion fitting and parameter shows comparison of acceleration time histories and influence the corresponding response spectra between fitting and real results for a typical ground motion. It can be Four main fault parameters of hanging-wall/footwall found that the fitting results on hanging-wall/footwall ground motions, earthquake magnitude, fault dip ground motion with the ASK model show good angle, soil shear-wave velocity and site distance are agreement with corresponding real earthquake focused in this study although there are many other records. It is worth mentioning that a soil shear parameters, such as site classification, rupture direc- wave velocity of 200–1000 m/s corresponds to the tion and focal mechanism. To investigate the effect soft soil condition. However, the influence of the SSI of near fault parameters on structural seismic perfor- effect is not considered. This research focuses on the mance systematically, each of the main parameters comparison of isolation effects under the influence of are set to be regular and serialized values. In other Table 5. Design of the analysis scheme considering the four main parameters. Ground motion Site distance Earthquake Shear-wave Fault dip (GM) (km) magnitude velocity (mm/s) angle (°) Description GM 1–8 −40 km 6(M6) 500(V500) 50(A50) Investigation on GM 9–16 -30 km 7(M7) 500(V500) 50(A50) effect of the GM 17–24 -20 km 8(M8) 500(V500) 50(A50) magnitude GM 25–32 -10 km 6(M6) 200(V200) 50(A50) Investigation on GM 33–40 10 km 6(M6) 400(V400) 50(A50) the effect of the GM 41–48 20 km 6(M6) 600(V600) 50(A50) shear-wave GM 49–56 30 km 6(M6) 800(V800) 50(A50) velocity GM 57–64 40 km 6(M6) 1000(V1000) 50(A50) GM 65–72 6(M6) 500(V500) 10(A10) Investigation on GM 73–80 6(M6) 500(V500) 30(A30) the effect of the GM 81–88 6(M6) 500(V500) 50(A50) dip angle GM 89–96 6(M6) 500(V500) 70(A70) GM 97–104 6(M6) 500(V500) 90(A90) Figure 4. Comparison between fitting and real results. (a) Acceleration spectrum and (b) time history curves JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 7 different shear wave velocities instead of the SSI effect, which will be further considered in subsequent studies. 4. Seismic isolation design 4.1. Isolation realization One of the main objectives of this study is to compare the dynamic performance of base-isolated and base- fixed ancient timber buildings subjected to near-fault ground motion with different fault parameters. Seismic isolators are generally classified into three types: linear natural rubber bearing (LNRB) (Tubaldi et al. 2017), lead rubber bearing (LRB) (Calugaru and Panagiotou 2014) and sliding bearing (Wang, Chung, and Liao 2015). Considering the different characteristics of Figure 5. Layouts of LRB and LNRB in the tower. LNRB and LRB, both of them are adopted in this study according to optimization analysis. The design the column bottom and foundation base. The LRB and process of LNRB and LRB has a basically similar pro- LNRB are connected with the embedded connecting gram, and details can be found in the literature plate by bolts. (Providakis 2008; Ryan and Earl 2010; Tzu and Po 2011). Definite, design and calculation of LRB are described here in brief. The elastic stiffness, equivalent 4.2. Isolation verification stiffness and post-yield stiffness of LRB can be defined with the following equations: Reasonability of seismic isolation of the Bell tower is evaluated by referring design code (GB/50001-2010; F F G�A y m r k ¼ ;�k ¼ ;�k ¼ �f ; (7) e equ p L GB/50009-2012). Several factors, including vertical bear- D Δ t y r ing capacity, wind-resistance performance and funda- where k ,k and k are the elastic stiffness, equiva- e equ P mental frequency, are adopted to verify the rationality lent stiffness and post-yield stiffness of LRB, respec- of the above seismic isolation. As we know, the first two tively, F is the yield strength, D is the yield y y factors are very common verification ways of isolation displacement, G is the shear modulus of rubber, A design, which are ignored in this study for simplification is the cross-sectional area of the rubber layer, t is purposes. The third factor, the fundamental frequency, the total thickness of the rubber, f is a constant is focused here. The dynamic characteristics of different factor and taken usually to be 1.5 (Providakis 2008) models are summarized in Table 7. The fundamental and F is the force occurring at a specified isolator period obtained by simulation is in the range of 2.78 displacement Δ. s – 2.84 s Hz for the base-isolated Bell tower, which is in The area E of the hysteretic curve of LRB and the most common range of 1 s–4 s for isolation build- equivalent damping ratio ξ are defined as equ ings. Ratios between base-isolated and base fixed struc- tures are in the range of 2–4 as shown in Table 7, which E ¼ 4QðΔ D Þ;�� ¼ ; (8) D y equ is also in the common range of 2–5. Besides, if the base- 2πk Δ equ isolated Bell tower is simplified as a single degree of where Q is the characteristic strength (force intercept freedom, its fundamental period can be calculated to be pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi at zero displacement). Based on the above equations, 1.08s based on theory formulation of T ¼ 2π M=K , design parameters of base isolation of the tower can where T is the period, M is the structural mass and K is be determined and are shown in Table 6. The specimen the horizontal equivalent stiffness of the isolation layer. layouts of LRB and LNRB are shown in Figure 5 in detail. Obviously, the maximum period error between simula- The LRB and LNRB are installed between the bottom of tion and the simplified calculation is only 2.8%. It can be the wooden frame column and the foundation. The verified that the design parameters of the base-isolated section steel connecting plate shall be embedded on Bell tower are rational. Table 6. Design parameters of LRB and LNRB. Bearing Type Diameter (mm) F (kN) k (kN/m) k (kN/m) K (kN/m) ξ (%) y equ e p equ LRB500 500 62.6 1459 5187 807 26.5 LNRB400 400 – 705 – – <5 8 T. OU AND D. WANG Table 7. Verifection of structural dynamic characteristics. Computational model M640 M500 M300 M100 Period BF BI BI/BF BF BI BI/BF BF BI BI/BF BF BI BI/BF st 1 1.1 2.84 2.58 1.05 2.82 2.69 0.99 2.79 2.82 0.94 2.78 2.96 nd 2 1.07 2.83 2.64 1.02 2.81 2.75 0.96 2.79 2.91 0.91 2.77 3.04 rd 3 0.98 2.59 2.64 0.93 2.57 2.76 0.88 2.55 2.90 0.83 2.53 3.05 th 4 0.19 0.39 2.05 0.18 0.37 2.06 0.17 0.36 2.12 0.16 0.34 2.13 th 5 0.18 0.38 2.11 0.18 0.37 2.06 0.17 0.35 2.06 0.16 0.33 2.06 th 6 0.17 0.37 2.18 0.16 0.35 2.19 0.15 0.33 2.20 0.15 0.32 2.13 Note: BF and BI mean the base-fixed and base-isolated structures, respectively. 5. Effect of hanging-wall/footwall fault on structural responses compared to footwall earth- parameters quakes at the same absolute site distance, especially for strong earthquakes. The base shears of the base- 5.1. Earthquake magnitude fixed M100 at site distances of 10 km and 20 km in M8 Figure 6 shows the curves of base shear of the base- are 343 kN and 300 kN, which are 1.6 and 1.9 times fixed and base-isolated models with various earth- than that of the site distances of −10 km and −20 km, quake magnitudes. The base shear increases with the respectively. Similar tendency can also be found in increase of magnitude. As shown in Figure 6(a), the Figures 6(b), 6(c) and 6(d) for the models of M300, base shears are 87.46 kN, 265.17 kN and 342.63 kN for M500 and M640. M6, M7 and M8, respectively, at the site distance of After the isolation layer is added to the four models, 10 km for the base-fixed M100. The smaller the site structural response is reduced effectively (as shown in distance (absolute value), the greater the base shear in Figures 7 and Table 8), indicating that the base isola- the same magnitude. The influence of the site distance tion technology can improve seismic performance to on the structural response is in the range of [−20 km, a great extent. Relative peak displacement (RPD) 20 km], in which greater dynamic response is aroused. between the structural top and bottom points of the Hanging-wall earthquakes have a significant influence superstructure is reduced for base-isolated models, Figure 6. Base shear versus earthquake magnitude. (a) M100, (b) M300, (c) M500 and (d) M640 JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 9 Figure 7. Base shear and top acceleration between base-fixed and base-isolated models. (a) Base shear and (b) top acceleration Table 8. Structural dynamic responses in M7 and M8. M7 M8 2 2 TPA (mm) RPD (m/s ) ILD (mm) TPA (mm) RPD (m/s ) ILD (mm) SD Model (km) BF BI IE BF BI IE BI BF BI IE BF BI IE BI M300 −40 0.16 0.09 44% 3.4 2.1 39% 40.3 1.20 0.65 46% 25.8 14.7 43% 104.2 −30 0.69 0.35 49% 14.4 7.2 50% 55.9 1.40 0.72 49% 30.0 17.0 43% 144.1 −20 0.95 0.43 55% 19.5 9.8 50% 82.9 1.72 0.85 51% 36.6 20.7 43% 167.2 −10 1.53 0.69 55% 31.3 15.8 50% 135.6 2.34 1.16 50% 49.6 28.0 43% 205.1 10 3.02 1.27 58% 61.3 24.3 60% 86.2 3.82 1.76 54% 79.5 37.8 52% 151.6 20 1.76 0.76 57% 35.6 15.0 58% 53.5 3.36 1.48 56% 69.5 30.8 56% 111.7 30 1.08 0.50 54% 22.1 10.2 54% 39.7 3.00 1.41 53% 62.2 26.6 57% 91.5 40 0.70 0.32 54% 14.6 7.3 50% 11.6 2.12 1.02 52% 44.3 19.3 56% 78.9 M640 −40 0.14 0.09 36% 3.5 2.4 30% 30.7 1.07 0.69 36% 27.8 17.9 36% 90.5 −30 0.61 0.35 43% 15.3 8.9 42% 50.4 1.25 0.80 36% 32.3 20.7 36% 120.8 −20 0.83 0.48 42% 20.8 12.1 42% 70.3 1.53 0.98 36% 39.5 25.3 36% 149.8 −10 1.34 0.76 43% 33.5 19.5 42% 119.2 2.09 1.33 36% 53.5 34.2 36% 180.6 10 2.60 1.23 53% 64.6 30.4 53% 77.2 3.34 1.81 46% 85.4 46.6 45% 138.1 20 1.52 0.74 51% 37.8 18.6 51% 47.1 2.92 1.49 49% 74.5 38.2 49% 99.5 30 0.94 0.51 46% 23.5 12.7 46% 34.2 2.60 1.43 45% 66.4 33.0 50% 81.5 40 0.62 0.35 44% 15.5 9.0 42% 9.9 1.84 1.05 43% 47.4 23.8 50% 71.3 meaning that concentrated deformation appears at magnitude, especially in the site distance range of the isolation layer. As shown in Table 8, RPDs at the [−20 km, 20 km]. As shown in Figure 8(a), the horizon- site distance of 10 km are reduced by 60% for M300 tal damping coefficients of the base-isolated M100 are and 53% for M640 in M7. However, the isolatioin layer 0.45, 0.46 and 0.49, respectively, at a site distance of displacements (ILD) reach 86 mm for M300 and 77 mm −20 km in M6, M7 and M8. The reason is that the larger for M640 in M7. The isolation effectiveness (IE) the magnitude, the greater the energy input and thus increases with the decrease of the absolute site dis- the stronger the structural dynamic responses. In the tance. To further explore the IE, the relationship same condition of isolation layer, the stronger the between the horizontal damping coefficient and the structual responses, the lower the IE. site distance for different models in various earthquake It can also be found that IE in hanging-wall earth- magnitudes is shown in Figure 8, in which the horizon- quakes appears to be better than that in footwall earth- tal damping coefficient is defined by the base shear quakes in the same earthquake magnitude. Taking ratio between isolated and non-isolated structures. It Figure 8(c) as an example, the horizontal damping coef- can be found that the horizontal damping coefficient ficients of the base-isolated M500 in M7 are 0.45 and 0.47 increases with the increase of earthquake magnitude, for the site distances of 10 km and 20 km, respectively, meaning that IE decreases with the increase of and 0.57 and 0.56 for −10 km and −20 km. The reason is 10 T. OU AND D. WANG Figure 8. Horizontal damping coefficient versus site distance. (a) M100, (b) M300, (c) M500 and (d) M640 that the predominant period of hanging-wall earthquake kN for V200, V400, V600, V800 and V1000, respectively, is less than that of the footwall earthquake and is farther at the site distance of −10 km for the base-fixed M100, away from the basic period of the base-isolated models, which is also for the base-isolated M100, namely, 65 which achieves the better IE. In additon, it can be found kN, 29.5 kN, 21.7 kN, 18.8 kN and 18.6 kN for V200, that IE decreases with the increase of building ages in the V400, V600, V800 and V1000, respectively. Obviously, same magnitude. The older the building, the smaller the the base shear of the base-isolated model is reduced structural overall stiffness, and thus the greater the struc- by comparing with that of the base-fixed model with tural response. Consequently, IE of the base-isolated different shear wave velocities and site distances. model with longer age will decrease in the condition of Further verification can be found for typical time his- the same isolation parameters. For example, as shown tory comparisons between the base-isolated and base- in Table 8, IE of structural top peak acceleration (TPA) fixed models, as shown in Figure 10, meaning that at the site distance of −10 km is 55% for M300, 43% good IE is ensured by adding the isolation layer to for M640 in M7 and similarly, 50% for M300 and 36% the four models with different ages. for M640 in M8. IE of RPD at the site distance of To clearly show the influence of shear wave −10 km is also the same, which are 50% for M300, velocity on the IE, the relationships of the horizontal 42% for M640 in M7 and similarly, 43% for M300 and damping coefficient versus site distance and typical 36% for M640 in M8. structural responses in different parameters are shown in Figure 11 and Table 9. It can be seen that the structural horizontal damping coefficient 5.2. Soil shear wave velocity and ILD have a certain degree of decrease with Figure 9 shows curves of base shear of the base-fixed the increase of shear wave velocity, and the greater and base-isolated models with the shear wave velocity. the shear wave velocity, the better the IE at the It can be seen that the bear shear decreases with the same site distance, especially for the larger absolute increase of shear wave velocity. The higher the abso- site distances, such as −30 km, −40 km, 30 km and lute site distance, the lower the base shear in the same 40 km. For example, as shown in Figure 11(b), the shear wave velocity. As shown in Figure 9(a), the base horizontal damping coefficients of the base-isolated shears are 143.2 kN, 72.3 kN, 52.2 kN, 43.8 kN and 37.7 M300 are 0.64, 0.59, 0.55, 0.48 and 0.43 for V200, JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 11 Figure 9. Base shear versus shear-wave velocity. (a) M100, (b) M300, (c) M500 and (d) M640 Figure 10. Response comparisons between base-fixed and base-isolated models. (a) Base shear and (b) top acceleration V400, V600, V800 and V1000 at site distance of the harder the site soil and therefore the better the −30 km, respectively, and 0.61, 0.54, 0.50, 0.45 and IE. Besides, it can be found that, in the site distance 0.42 at a site distance of 30 km, respectively. The range of [−20 km, 20 km], the IE appears to be reason is that the greater the shear wave velocity, similar for shear wave velocity from V400 to 12 T. OU AND D. WANG Figure 11. Horizontal damping coefficient versus site distance. (a) M100, (b) M300, (c) M500 and (d) M640 Table 9. Structural dynamic responses in V200, V400 and V800. V200 V400 V800 RPD ILD RPD ILD RPD ILD 2 2 2 TPA (m/s ) (mm) (mm) TPA (m/s ) (mm) (mm) TPA (m/s ) (mm) (mm) SD Model (km) BF BI IE BF BI BF BI IE BF BI BF BI IE BF BI M300 −40 0.43 0.27 37% 8.7 29.8 0.21 0.13 38% 4.1 16.2 0.12 0.06 50% 2.4 12.0 −30 0.58 0.35 40% 11.1 36.5 0.29 0.16 45% 5.3 18.9 0.16 0.08 50% 3.0 13.6 −20 0.86 0.48 44% 16.6 58.9 0.44 0.21 52% 8.0 27.6 0.25 0.11 56% 4.5 18.1 −10 1.56 0.76 51% 30.4 120.3 0.83 0.36 57% 15.1 57.0 0.48 0.20 58% 8.5 39.0 10 2.46 1.11 55% 48.7 81.0 1.40 0.59 58% 25.6 37.2 0.83 0.34 59% 14.4 24.1 20 1.19 0.59 50% 23.0 42.5 0.62 0.27 56% 11.2 21.2 0.36 0.15 58% 6.3 14.6 30 0.74 0.43 42% 14.2 28.7 0.37 0.20 46% 6.8 15.9 0.21 0.09 57% 3.8 11.8 40 0.52 0.32 38% 10.7 25.0 0.26 0.15 42% 5.0 14.3 0.15 0.08 47% 2.8 10.9 M640 −40 0.32 0.22 31% 9.6 27.1 0.17 0.11 35% 4.5 15.3 0.12 0.07 42% 2.6 11.2 −30 0.50 0.33 34% 12.2 33.5 0.24 0.15 38% 5.7 17.5 0.14 0.07 50% 3.2 12.9 −20 0.75 0.42 44% 18.1 53.3 0.37 0.19 49% 8.6 25.4 0.21 0.09 57% 4.8 16.9 −10 1.36 0.68 50% 33.6 108.6 0.71 0.31 56% 16.4 51.5 0.41 0.17 59% 9.2 36.9 10 2.15 1.04 52% 53.8 73.3 1.19 0.55 54% 27.6 33.7 0.70 0.32 54% 15.5 22.4 20 1.03 0.54 48% 25.3 38.2 0.53 0.25 53% 12.2 19.2 0.30 0.13 57% 6.8 13.2 30 0.64 0.40 38% 15.7 25.4 0.32 0.18 44% 7.4 14.2 0.18 0.08 56% 4.2 10.5 40 0.38 0.26 32% 11.2 21.9 0.21 0.13 38% 5.2 12.5 0.14 0.08 43% 2.9 9.2 V1000, and basically, there is no change with the a slight advantage. Taking Table 9 as an example, site distance. It can be concluded that when the the IEs of TPA of M300 are 37% and 38% for the shear wave velocity exceeds 400 mm/s, it has less site distance of −40 km and 40 km in V200, respec- effect on the IE in the site distance range of tively, and 50% and 47% in V800, respectively. In [−20 km, 20 km]. additon, it can be found that IE decreases with the It can also be found that IE in hanging-wall earth- increase of building ages at the same shear wave quakes seems to be similar to that in footwall earth- velocity, which shows similar tendency to that in the quakes with the same absolute site distance and the same magnitude. For example, as shown in Table 9, same shear wave velocity although the latter has IEs of structural top peak acceleration (TPA) at the JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 13 Figure 12. Base shear versus fault dip angle. (a) M100, (b) M300, (c) M500 and (d) M640 site distance of −40 km are 37% for M300 and 31% relationships between the base shear and the site dis- for M640 in V200 and similarly, 38% for M300 and tance of the base-isolated models at different fault dip 35% for M640 in V400. The RPD with isolation tech- angles are the same as that of the base-fixed models. nology is much lower than that of ILD. For example, Further investigation on the horizontal damping the RPD and ILD of M640 at the site distance of coefficient is shown in Figure 13. It can be found that −10 km are 33.6 mm and 108.6 mm in V200, respec- IE of the base-isolated models also remains unchanged tively, and 16.4 mm and 51.5 mm in V400 and with the fault dip angle changing from A10 to A90 in 9.2 mm and 36.9 mm in V800. In other words, the footwall earthquakes, whereas it decreases with the RPD is lower than that of 1/3 ILD. increase of fault dip angles in hanging-wall earthquakes with the same site distance. For example, as shown in Figure 13(c), the horizontal damping coefficients of 5.3. Fault dip angle M500 at a site distance of 30 km are 0.42, 0.45, 0.47, 0.5 and 0.52 for A10, A30, A50, A70 and A90, respec- Figure 12 shows the relationships between the base tively, and remain constant at 0.51 at the site distance shear of the base-fixed and the base-isolated models of 30 km for all the five fault dip angles. Besides, it can with the fault dip angle. For one thing, it can be found be found that the horizontal damping coefficients that the bear shear of the base-fixed models remains decrease with the decrease of absolute site distances unchanged with the fault dip angles from A10 to A90 in in both the hanging-wall and footwall earthquakes with footwall earthquakes, whereas decreases with the the same fault dip angle, and the horizontal damping increase of fault dip angles in hanging-wall earthquakes coefficients in hanging-wall earthquakes are smaller with the same site distance, especially for smaller site than those in footwall earthquakes, indicating that distances, such as 10 km and 20 km. For another, with models with a smaller site distance achieve better IE, the decrease of the absolute site distance, the base especially in hanging-wall earthquakes. Furthermore, it shears of the base-fixed models increase for both the can be found that IE decreases with the increase of hanging-wall and footwall earthquakes with the same building ages at the same fault dip angles, which also fault dip angle, indicating significant growth for the shows similar tendency with that of parameters of the former and slight growth for the latter. Similarly, magnitude and the shear wave velocity. 14 T. OU AND D. WANG Figure 13. Horizontal damping coefficient versus site distance. (a) M100, (b) M300, (c) M500 and (d) M640 6. Conclusions Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the Influences of the hanging-wall/footwall earthquakes author(s). on seismic performance of ancient timber buildings are investigated in this study. The following conclu- sions can be drawn: Funding 1. ASK model, with the lowest mean value and standard deviation of the fitting random errors of 622 This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [51878191], Guangdong Natural actual ground motions, is suggested to generate hang- Science Foundation [2020A1515010994] and Guangzhou ing-wall/footwall earthquakes. Science and technology project [202102010459, 2. Structural responses are greatly reduced by add- 202032866], which is gratefully acknowledged. ing the isolation layer at the bottom of the four mod- els, and RPD of the base-isolated superstructure is decreased by more than half compared with the base- References fixed model, indicating that isolation technology can Abd-Elhamed, A., and S. Mahmoud. 2019. “Simulation improve seismic performance significantly for ancient Analysis of TMD Controlled Building Subjected to Far- timber buildings with different ages. and Near-fault Records considering Soil-structure 3. Structural IE decreases with increasing earthquake Interaction.” Journal of Building Engineering 26: 100930. magnitudes, especially in the site distance range of doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100930. Abrahamson, N. A. 1996. “Effects of the Hanging-wall/foot- [−20 km, 20 km], but increases with decreasing absolute wall on Ground Motions Recorded during the Northridge site distances. The shear-wave velocity has no effect on Earthquake.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of the IE in the site distance range of [−20 km, 20 km] if it America 86: S93–S99. doi:10.1785/BSSA08601B0S93. exceeds 400 mm/s. The IE remains unchanged with dif- Abrahamson, N. A., W. J. Silva, and R. Kamai. 2014. “Summary ferent fault dip angles in footwall earthquakes, whereas it of the Ask14 Ground-motion Relation for Active Crustal appears to be decreasing with increasing fault dip angles Regions.” Earthquake Spectra 30 (3): 913–914. doi:10.1193/ 070913EQS198M. in hanging-wall earthquakes at the same site distance. JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 15 Aghamolaei, M., A. S. Azizkandi, M. H. Baziar, and S. Ghavami. Humbert, J., C. Boudaud, J. Baroth, S. Hameury, and 2021. “Performance-based Analysis of Cantilever Retaining L. Daudeville. 2014. “Joints and Wood Shear Walls Walls Subjected to Near-fault Ground Shakings.” Modelling Constitutive Law, Experimental Tests and FE Computers and Geotechnics 130: 103924. Model under Quasi-static Loading.” Engineering Structures Bedon, C., G. Rinaldin, M. Fragiacomo, and S. Noé. 2019. 65: 52–61. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.01.047. “Q-factor Estimation for 3D Log-house Timber Buildings Jia, B., R. Liu, and T. Ye. 2014. “Finite Element Modeling via Finite Element Analyses.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Technologies and Analysis on Seismic Behaviour of Engineering 116: 215–229. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2018. Timber Structures.” Earthquake Resistant Engineering and 09.040. Retrofitting 36 (3): 67–71. Bedon, C., G. Rinaldin, and M. Frgiacomo. 2015. “Non-linear Meng, Z. B. 2009. Analysis and Assessment of the Modelling of the In-plane Seismic Behaviour of Timber Vibration Responds Traffic-induced of Xi’an Bell Tower. Blockhaus Log-walls.” Engineering Structures 91 (5): Xi’an City: Xi’an University of Architecture and 112–124. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.03.002. Technology Press. Bilgin, H., and M. Hysenlliu. 2020. “Comparison of near Oudjene, M., and M. Khelifa. 2009. “Elasto-plastic Constitutive and Far-fault Ground Motion Effects on Low and Law for Wood Behaviour under Compressive Loadings.” Mid-rise Masonry Buildings.” Journal of Building Construction and Building Materials 23 (11): 3359–3366. Engineering 30: 101248. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2020.10 doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.06.034. Providakis, C. P. 2008. “Effect of LRB Isolators and Calugaru, V., and M. Panagiotou. 2014. “Seismic Response of Supplemental Viscous Dampers on Seismic Isolated 20-story Base-isolated and Fixed-base Reinforced Buildings under Near-fault Excitations.” Engineering Concrete Structural Wall Buildings at a Near-fault Site.” Structures 30 (5): 1187–1198. doi:10.1016/j. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 43 (6): engstruct.2007.07.020. 927–948. doi:10.1002/eqe.2381. Ryan, K. L., and C. L. Earl. 2010. “Analysis and Design of Campbell, K. W., and Y. Bozorgnia. 2014. “Nga-west2 Inter-story Isolation Systems with Nonlinear Devices.” Campbell-bozorgnia Ground Motion Model for the Journal of Earthquake Engineering 14 (7): 1044–1062. Horizontal Components of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped doi:10.1080/13632461003668020. Elastic Pseudo-acceleration Response Spectra for Periods Sapkota, S. N., L. Bollinger, Y. Klinger, P. Tapponnier, Ranging from 0.01 To 10s.” Earthquake Spectra 30 (3): Y. Gaudemer, and D. Tiwari. 2013. “Primary Surface 1087–1115. doi:10.1193/062913EQS175M. Ruptures of the Great Himalayan Earthquakes in 1934 Chiou, B., R. Youngs, N. Abrahamson, and K. Addo. 2010. and 1255.” Nature Geoscience 6 (1): 71–76. doi:10.1038/ “Ground-motion Attenuation Model for Small-to- ngeo1669. moderate Shallow Crustal Earthquakes in California and Shehata, E. A. R., M. A. Mohamed, and M. A. A. Tarek. 2014. Its Implications on Regionalization of Ground-motion “Evaluation of Soil–foundation-structure Interaction Prediction Models.” Earthquake Spectra 26 (4): 907–926. Effects on Seismic Response Demands of Multi-story MRF doi:10.1193/1.3479930. Buildings on Raft Foundations.” International Journal of GB/50001-2010. 2010. Code for Seismic Design of Advanced Structural Engineering 7: 11–30. Buildings. Beijing: China Academy of Building Sun, B. B., S. R. Zhang, M. J. Deng, and C. Wang. 2020. Research. “Inelastic Dynamic Response and Fragility Analysis of GB/50009-2012. 2012. Load Code for the Design of Building Arched Hydraulic Tunnels under As-recorded Far-fault Structures. Beijing: China Academy of Building Research. and Near-fault Ground Motions.” Soil Dynamics and GB/50165-1992. 1993. Technical Code for Maintenance and Earthquake Engineering 132: 106070. doi:10.1016/j. Strengthening of Ancient Timber Building Structures. soildyn.2020.106070. Beijing: China Academy of Building Research. Todorov, B., and A. H. M. Muntasir. 2021. “Seismic Fragility Güllü, H., and M. Karabekmez. 2017. “Effect of Near-fault and and Damage Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Far-fault Earthquakes on a Historical Masonry Mosque Pier under Long-duration, Near-fault, and Far-field Ground through 3d Dynamic Soil-structure Interaction.” Motions.” Structures 31: 671–685. doi:10.1016/j. Engineering Structures 152: 465–492. doi:10.1016/j. compgeo.2020.103924. engstruct.2017.09.031. Tubaldi, E., L. Ragni, A. Dall’Asta, H. Ahmadi, and A. Muhr. Hadianfard, M. A., and S. Sedaghat. 2013. “Investigation of 2017. “Stress Softening Behaviour of HDNR Bearings: Joist Floor Diaphragm Flexibility on Inelastic Behavior of Modelling and Influence on the Seismic Response of Steel Braced Structures.” Scientia Iranica 20 (3): 445–453. Isolated Structures.” Earthquake Engineering and Han, G. S. 2011. The Micro Vibration of Urban Rail Transit Impact on Ancient Building. Xi’an City: Xi’an University of Structural Dynamics 46: 2033–2054. Architecture and Technology Press. Faherty, R., S. Acikgoz, E. K. L. Wong, R. Hewitt, and G. M. B. Viggiani. 2022. “Tunnel-soil-structure interaction Hu, W. B., G. S. Han, and H. P. Yu. 2011a. “The Analysis about mechanisms in a metallic arch bridge.“ Tunnelling and Node Stiffness of Mortise and Tenon in Ancient Building.” Underground Space Technology Incorporating Trenchless Sichuan Building Science 37: 44–47. Technology Research 123: 104429. Hu, W. B., G. S. Han, and H. P. Yu. 2011b. “The Analysis about Tzu, Y. L., and C. C. Po. 2011. “Sliding Mode Control for Node Stiffness of Mortise and Tenon in Ancient Building.” Nonlinear Isolated Bridges.” Journal of Earthquake Sichuan Building Science 37 (6): 44–47. Engineering 15 (4): 19. Huang, C. Q. 2017. Study on Three-dimensional Seismic Wang, Y. P., L. L. Chung, and W. H. Liao. 2015. “Seismic Response and Seismic Isolation Control of the Ancient Response Analysis of Bridges Isolated with Friction Timber Structure. Guangzhou: Guangzhou University Press. Pendulum Bearings.” Earthquake Engineering and 16 T. OU AND D. WANG Structural Dynamics 27 (10): 1069–1093. doi:10.1002/ Xie, W., and L. M. Sun. 2021. “Experimental and Numerical Investigations on Transverse Seismic Responses of Soil-cable- (SICI)1096-9845(199810)27:10<1069::AID-EQE770>3.0. stayed-bridge System Subjected to Transverse Near-fault CO;2-S. Ground Motions.” Engineering Structures 226: 111361. Wang, X., and Z. B. Meng. 2017. “Earthquake Response doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111361. Analysis of Xi’an Bell Tower.” World Earthquake Yokoyama, M., J. Gril, M. Matsuo, H. Yano, J. Sugiyama, Engineering 3 (33): 136–141. B. Clair, S. Kubodera, et al. 2009. “Mechanical Wen, Z. G. 2015. Research on Friction Energy Dissipation and Characteristics of Aged Hinoki Wood from Japanese Seismic Performance for the Joints of Ancient Timber Historical Buildings.” Composites Rendus Physique 10 (7): Structures. Xi’an City: Xi’an University of Architecture and 601–611. doi:10.1016/j.crhy.2009.08.009. Technology Press.
Journal
Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering
– Taylor & Francis
Published: Mar 4, 2023
Keywords: Fault parameters; hanging-wall/footwall effect; ancient timber structure; isolation