SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dicle Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Mühendislik Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 17 Sayı: 1

The effect of free vibration period on the ratio of hysteretic-to-input energy: An investigation based on the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake records

Serbest titreşim periyodunun histeretik enerjinin giren enerjiye oranı üzerindeki etkisi: 2023 Kahramanmaraş depremi kayıtları üzerine bir inceleme

Onur Merter(İZMİR EKONOMİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-6435-8122
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-03-24
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results show that, under the selected earthquake records, short-period systems dissipate a relatively small portion of the input energy through hysteretic mechanisms, while for medium- and long-period systems, the hysteretic-to-input energy ratio stabilizes after a certain threshold period.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates the role of structural period on the ratio of hysteretic-to-input energy in single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) nonlinear systems.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Nonlinear dynamic time history analyses were conducted using the 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık earthquake ground motion records.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results show that, under the selected earthquake records, short-period systems dissipate a relatively small portion of the input energy through hysteretic mechanisms, while for medium- and long-period systems, the hysteretic-to-input energy ratio stabilizes after a certain threshold period.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Histeretik enerjinin giren enerjiye oranı · Tek serbestlik dereceli doğrusal olmayan sistem · Zaman tanım alanında doğrusal olmayan analiz

Abstract

This study investigates the role of structural period on the ratio of hysteretic-to-input energy in single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) nonlinear systems. Nonlinear dynamic time history analyses were conducted using the 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık earthquake ground motion records. An elastoplastic bilinear hysteretic model was adopted to represent the cyclic behavior of the systems under seismic excitation, and energy spectra were obtained for different ductility levels. The results show that, under the selected earthquake records, short-period systems dissipate a relatively small portion of the input energy through hysteretic mechanisms, while for medium- and long-period systems, the hysteretic-to-input energy ratio stabilizes after a certain threshold period. This indicates that the effect of structural period on energy dissipation can be independently assessed within the scope of this study. To quantitatively describe this relationship, the dependency between the hysteretic-to-input energy ratio and the period was modeled using nonlinear regression analyses. The developed models successfully capture the rapid variations observed at short periods and the stabilization trends at longer periods. In conclusion, this study focuses on the period effect under the selected earthquake records and modeling assumptions, providing insights into the role of period in energy-based seismic assessment. The findings are valid only under the specific conditions considered in this study.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, tek serbestlik dereceli (TSD) doğrusal olmayan sistemlerde histeretik enerjinin depremle birlikte sisteme giren enerjiye oranı üzerinde yapısal periyodun rolü araştırılmıştır. Çalışma kapsamında, 2023 Kahramanmaraş-Pazarcık depremine ait ivme kayıtları kullanılarak zaman tanım alanında doğrusal olmayan dinamik analizler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Elastoplastik bilineer histeretik model, sistemlerin deprem etkisi altında döngüsel davranışını temsil etmek amacıyla benimsenmiş ve farklı süneklik düzeyleri için enerji spektrumları elde edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, seçilen deprem kayıtları altında kısa periyotlu sistemlerin giriş enerjisinin görece sınırlı bir kısmını histeretik mekanizmalar yoluyla tükettiğini; orta ve uzun periyotlu sistemlerde ise histeretik enerjinin giren enerjiye oranının belirli bir eşik periyottan sonra görece durağan bir eğilim sergilediğini ortaya koymuştur. Bu durum, yapısal periyodun enerji tüketimi üzerindeki etkisinin, çalışma kapsamında bağımsız olarak değerlendirilebileceğini göstermektedir. Söz konusu ilişkinin nicel olarak tanımlanabilmesi için, histeretik enerjinin giren enerjiye oranı ile periyot arasındaki bağıntı doğrusal olmayan regresyon analizleriyle modellenmiştir. Geliştirilen modeller, kısa periyotlarda gözlemlenen hızlı değişimleri ve uzun periyotlarda ortaya çıkan yataylaşma eğilimlerini başarılı bir şekilde temsil etmektedir. Sonuç olarak, bu çalışma yalnızca seçilen deprem kayıtları ve modelleme varsayımları altında periyot etkisini incelemekte ve enerji esaslı sismik değerlendirme yaklaşımlarında periyot etkisinin anlaşılmasına katkı sağlayacak bulgular sunmaktadır. Elde edilen bulgular yalnızca bu çalışmada kullanılan koşullar altında geçerlidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Merter, O. (2026). The effect of free vibration period on the ratio of hysteretic-to-input energy: An investigation based on the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake records. Dicle Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Mühendislik Dergisi, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 1. https://doi.org/10.24012/dumf.1768513

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (28)

  1. B. Akbaş, J. Shen, and H. Hao, “Energy approach in performance-based seismic design of steel moment resisting frames for basic safety objective,” Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 193–217, 2001. DOI: 10.1002/tal.172.
  2. L. D. Decanini and F. Mollaioli, “An energy-based methodology for the assessment of seismic demand,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 113–137, 2001. DOI: 10.1016/S0267-7261(00)00102-0.
  3. C.-M. Uang and V. V. Bertero, “Evaluation of seismic energy in structures,” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 77–90, 1990. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.4290190108.
  4. G. Manfredi, “Evaluation of seismic energy demand,” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 485–499, 2001. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.17.
  5. E. Kalkan and S. K. Kunnath, “Relevance of absolute and relative energy content in seismic evaluation of structures,” Adv. Struct. Eng., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 17–34, 2008. DOI: 10.1260/136943308784069469.
  6. P. Fajfar, T. Vidic, and M. Fischinger, “Seismic demand in medium- and long-period structures,” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 1133–1144, 1989. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.4290180805.
  7. P. Fajfar and T. Vidic, “Consistent inelastic design spectra: Hysteretic and input energy,” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 523–537, 1994. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.4290230505.
  8. L. D. Decanini and F. Mollaioli, “Formulation of elastic earthquake input energy spectra,” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 1503–1522, 1998. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199812)27:12 3.0.CO;2-A.
  9. A. Benavent-Climent, L. G. Pujades, and F. López-Almansa, “Design energy input spectra for moderate-seismicity regions,” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 1151–1172, 2002. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.153.
  10. Y. Cheng, A. Lucchini, and F. Mollaioli, “Correlation of elastic input energy equivalent velocity spectral values,” Earthq. Struct., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 957–976, 2015. DOI: 10.12989/eas.2015.8.5.957.
  11. A. A. Dindar, C. Yalçın, E. Yüksel, H. Özkaynak, and O. Büyüköztürk, “Development of earthquake energy demand spectra,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 1667–1689, 2015. DOI: 10.1193/011212EQS010M.
  12. M. G. Mezgebo and E. M. Lui, “Hysteresis and soil site dependent input and hysteretic energy spectra for far-source ground motions,” Adv. Civ. Eng., vol. 2016, no. 1, pp. 1–29, 2016. DOI: 10.1155/2016/1548319.
  13. F. S. Alıcı and H. Sucuoğlu, “Elastic and inelastic near-fault input energy spectra,” Earthq. Spectra, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 611–637, 2018. DOI: 10.1193/090817EQS175M.
  14. S. Hasanoğlu, E. Güllü, and A. Güllü, “Empirical correlations of constant ductility seismic input and hysteretic energies with conventional intensity measures,” Bull. Earthquake Eng., vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 4905–4922, 2023. DOI: 10.1007/s10518-023-01722-x.
  15. N. Gholami, S. Garivani, and S. S. Askariani, “State-of-the-art review of energy-based seismic design methods,” Arch. Comput. Methods Eng., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1965–1996, 2022. DOI: 10.1007/s11831-021-09645-z.
  16. B. Hancıoğlu, M. S. Kırçıl, and Z. Polat, “Equivalent input energy velocity of elastoplastic SDOF systems with specific strength,” Buildings, vol. 15, no. 13, Art. no. 2288, pp. 1–21, 2025. DOI: 10.3390/buildings15132288.
  17. H. Zhang, Y.-G. Zhao, F.-W. Ge, Y. Fang, and T. Ochiai, “Estimation of input energy spectrum from pseudo-velocity response spectrum incorporating the influences of magnitude, distance, and site conditions,” Eng. Struct., vol. 274, Art. no. 115165, 2023, DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.115165.
  18. A. Benavent-Climent, F. López-Almansa, and D. A. Bravo-González, “Design energy input spectra for moderate-to-high seismicity regions based on Colombian earthquakes,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 1129–1148, 2010, DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.04.022.
  19. F. López-Almansa, A. U. Yazgan, and A. Benavent-Climent, “Design energy input spectra for high seismicity regions based on Turkish registers,” Bull. Earthquake Eng., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 885–912, 2013, DOI: 10.1007/s10518-012-9415-2.
  20. F. Çalım, A. Güllü, and E. Yüksel, “Comparison of various input energy spectra for the February 6th, 2023, Kahramanmaraş earthquake sequence,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, pp. 1–20, 2024, DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2024.2336202.
  21. A. K. Chopra, Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall, 1995.
  22. AFAD-TADAS, “Turkish accelerometric database and analysis system,” Disaster of Emergency Management Presidency. [Online]. Available: https://tadas.afad.gov.tr/. [Accessed: May 12, 2024].
  23. TBDY: Türkiye Bina Deprem Yönetmeliği, Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı, Resmî Gazete’de yayımlanmıştır, 18 Mart 2018, Ankara, Türkiye.
  24. PRISM: A software for seismic response analysis of single-degree-of-freedom systems, Department of Architectural Engineering, INHA University, 2021.
  25. The MathWorks, MATLAB Version: 24.2.0 (R2024b), Available: https://www.mathworks.com, Accessed: Sep. 20, 2024.
  26. Akiyama H., Earthquake Resistant Limit-State Design for Buildings, Tokyo, Japan: University of Tokyo Press, 1985.
  27. H. Kuwamura and T. V. Galambos, “Earthquake load for structural reliability,” J. Struct. Eng., vol. 115, no. 6, pp. 1446–1462, 1989.
  28. P. Khashaee, Energy-Based Seismic Design and Damage Assessment for Structures, Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Methodist Univ., Dallas, TX, 2004.