Low-rise reinforced concrete (RC) building is very common to be seen in everywhere. Most of them were built typically with the same configuration of structure plans. One of the important things to do an observation is the differences in structural response to far-field and near-fault ground motions. The width of acceleration pulse which is larger than the natural period of the structure can totally damage the whole structure. To achieve an assessment of collapse behavior RC frame, this research aims to extend well-known concept and results, based on nonlinear dynamic analysis for both far-field and near-fault motions.
Non-ductile and ductile columns are useful to be considered to achieve collapse behavior in the structure. Widely spaced transverse reinforcement is the characteristic of shear and axial failure. It was applied to the experimental study of one-story RC frame. Moderate axial load, confined joints, flexure-shear column (MCFS) specimen was also experienced in the two-story RC frame to reach the collapse structure under near-fault motions. Based on these two experimental studies, a three-story RC frame will be observed to have the best structure model in collapse behavior test.
An inelastic response is used in this research. The idealized plastic hinge is FEMA and TEASPA, which is implemented in ETABS Nonlinear version to automatically assign plastic hinges of column reinforced concrete elements. Inter-story drift and displacement at center of mass are used as the seismic demands parameter. The results show that non-ductile columns in the old structure of three-story RC frame can collapse when the drift ratio is between 6-8%. The deformed shape of this reinforced frame looks like soft story collapse in the first-story, which means that the energy of near-fault earthquake motion is absorbed by that structure part.

ABSTRACT i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES viii
NOTATION xiii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Background and Research Motivation 1
1.2. Objectives and Scope of the Research 3
1.3. Organization and Thesis Overview 3
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.1. Response of SDF Systems to Near-Fault and Far-Field Earthquake Motions 5
2.1.1. Elastic Response Spectra 6
2.1.2. Response of Inelastic Systems 9
2.2. Near-fault Ground Motions Responses of RC Moment Frames 11
2.3. Experimental Studies on Behavior of Ductile and Non-ductile Columns 12
2.4. Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Specimen MCFS 13
2.5. Low-rise Reinforced Concrete Street Houses in Taiwan 14
2.6. FEMA 356 15
2.7. TEASPA 18
2.7.1. Beam 18
2.7.2. Column 20
2.8. PERFORM 3D Plastic Hinge Properties 24
2.8.1. Rigid-Plastic Hinge Concept for Beam 24
2.8.2. Hinges with P-M-M Interaction 26
CHAPTER 3 CASE STUDY 27
3.1. The Effect of Near-Fault and Far-Field Ground Motions on High-Rise and Low-Rise Buildings 27
3.1.1. Reinforced Concrete Buildings 27
3.1.2. SAC Buildings 33
3.2. 1-Story Ductile and Non-ductile Reinforced Concrete Frame 36
3.3. 2-Story Reinforced Concrete Frames with Non-Seismic Detailing 42
3.4. 3-Story Reinforced Concrete Frame 46
3.4.1. Structural Modeling 46
3.4.2. Material Properties 49
3.4.3. Ground Motion 53
3.4.4. Idealized Plastic Hinge 58
CHAPTER 4 RESULT AND ANALYTICAL STUDY 61
4.1. Behavior of RC and Steel Frames Subjected to Near-Fault and Far-Field Ground Motions 61
4.2. Behavior of 1-Story Ductile and Non-ductile Reinforced Concrete Frame 68
4.3. Behavior of 2-Story Reinforced Concrete Frame 74
4.4. Behavior of 3-Story Reinforced Concrete Frame 82
4.4.1. Old Structural Frame 82
4.4.2. New Structural Frame 98
4.5. Discussion 112
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH 118
5.1. Conclusion 118
5.2. Suggestion and Future Research 119
REFERENCES 120

1. Chopra, A.K. and C. Chintanapakdee, Comparing Response of SDF Systems to Near-Fault and Far-Fault Earthquake Motions in the Context of Spectral Regions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 2001. 30: p. 1769-1789.
2. Bertero, V.V., S.A. Mahin, and R.A. Herrera, Aseismic Design Implications of San Fernando Earthquake Records. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 1978. 6: p. 31-42.
3. Anderson, J.C. and V.V. Bertero, Uncertainties in Establishing Design Earthquake. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 1987. 113(8): p. 1709-1724.
4. Chopra, A.K. and C. Chintanapakdee, Accuracy of Response Spectrum Estimates of Structural Response to Near-Field Earthquake Ground Motions: Preliminary Results. AS-CE Structures World Conference, 1998, San Francisco.
5. Malhotra, P.K., Response of Buildings to Near-Field Pulse-Like Ground Motions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 1999. 28: p. 1309-1326.
6. Liao, W.-I., C.-H. Loh, and S. Wan, Earthquake Responses of RC Moment Frames Subjected to Near-fault Ground Motions. Structural Design of Tall Buildings, 2001. 10: p. 219-229.
7. TRC and C. Chadwell, Cross-Sectional X Structural Analysis of Components. XTRACT v. 3.0.8, 2007, United States.
8. NCREE, NCREE 13-023 Report: Technology Handbook for Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of School Buildings. 2013, National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering: Taipei, Taiwan.
9. CSI, ETABS Nonlinear v9.7.4, Extended Three Dimensional Analysis of Building System. 2011, Computer and Structures, Inc.: Berkeley, California, USA.
10. CSI, Nonlinear Analysis and Performance Assessment 3D Structures. PERFORM 3D V5, 2011, Berkeley, CA: Computers and Structures.
11. Hall, J.F., et al., Near-Source Ground Motion and Its Effects on Flexible Buildings. Earthquake Spectra, 1995. 11(4): p. 569-605.
12. Wu, C.-L., et al., Collapse on Nonductile Concrete Frame: Shaking Table Tests. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 2009. 38: p. 205-224.
13. Yavari, S., et al., Experimental Study on Dynamic Behavior of Multi-Story Reinforced Concrete Frames with Non-Seismic Detailing. ATC and SEI Conference on Improving the Seismic Performance of Existing Buildings and Other Structures, 2009: p. 489-499.
14. Amelia, K., Seismic Behavior of Exterior Walls with Typical Opening of Low-rise Reinforced Concrete Street Houses in Taiwan. 2013, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology.
15. FEMA, FEMA 356: Pre Standard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. 2000, Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington, DC, USA.
16. NCREE, NCREE 09-023 Report: Technology Handbook for Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of School Buildings, 2009, National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering: Taipei, Taiwan.
17. NCREE, NCREE 13-023 Report: Technology Handbook for Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of School Buildings, 2013, National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering: Taipei, Taiwan.
18. ASCE, ASCE 41-06: Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, 2006, American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, Virginia, USA.
19. ACI, ACI 318-11: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, 2011, American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA.
20. Elwood, K.J., and Moehle, J.P., Drift Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Columns with Light Transverse Reinforcement. Earthquake Spectra, 2005. 21(1): p. 71-89.
21. Sezen, H., Seismic Behavior and Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Columns, 2002, University of California.
22. Hsiao, F.-P., Y. Oktavianus, and Y.-C. Ou, A Pushover Seismic Analysis Method for Asymmetric and Tall Buildings. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 2015.
23. CGS, The Geological Report of 921 Earthquake. 1999, Central Geological Survey, Ministry of Economic Affairs: Taipei, Taiwan.
24. Baker, J.W. and C.A. Cornell, Vector-Valued Intensity Measures for Pulse-Like Near-Fault Ground Motions. Engineering Structures, 2008. 30: p. 1048-1057.
25. Gupta, A. and H. Krawinkler, Seismic Demands for Performance Evaluation of Steel Moment Resisting Frame Structures. Blume Earthquake Engineering, 1999, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford.
26. Yavari, S., et al., Analysis of Shake Table Collapse Tests for RC Frames. 4th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2006.
27. Yavari, S., Shaking Table Tests on the Response of Reinforced Concrete Frames with Non-Seismic Detailing. 2010, The University of British Columbia.
28. Mander, J.B., M.J.N. Priestley, and R. Park, Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 1988. 114(8): p. 1804-1826.
29. Mander, J.B., M.J.N. Priestley, and R. Park, Observed Stress-Strain Behavior of Confined Concrete. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 1988. 114(8): p. 1827-1849.