Comparison of static pushover analysis and IDA-based probabilistic methods for assessing the seismic performance factors of diagrid structures

Document Type : Article

Authors

1 Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Kish International Branch, Kish Island, Iran

2 Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

This study attempts to reliably quantify the seismic response parameters of the steel diagrid structural systems. In that regard, in addition to the conventional static pushover analysis (SPA), the dynamic pushover analysis (DPA) based on the incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) technique is also considered. FEMA P-695 recommends a methodology for establishing seismic performance factors (SPFs). The present study tries to propose a simpler framework for estimating and validating SPFs while applying the concepts of FEMA P-695 guideline. The results show that the R-factors obtained with the SPA procedure for steel diagrid systems are conservative and the IDA-based probabilistic method gives a more rational value for the R coefficient. Furthermore, the proposed simplified method has good agreement with FEMA P-695 in predicting the collapse capacity of diagrid models.

Keywords


References
1. Kim, J. and Lee, Y.H. Seismic performance evaluation
of diagrid system buildings", The Structural
Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 21(10), pp. 736{
749 (2012).
2. Moon, K.S., Connor, J.J., and Fernandez, J.E. Di136
A. Seyedkazemi and F. Rahimzadeh Rofooei/Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 28 (2021) 124{137
agrid structural systems for tall buildings: characteristics
and methodology for preliminary design", The
Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 16(2),
pp. 205{230 (2007).
3. Jani, K. and Patel, P.V. Analysis and design of
diagrid structural system for high rise steel buildings",
Procedia Engineering, 51, pp. 92{100 (2013).
4. Montuori, G.M., Mele, E., Brandonisio, G., and Luca,
A.D. Design criteria for diagrid tall buildings: sti -
ness versus strength", The Structural Design of Tall
and Special Buildings, 23(17), pp. 1294{1314 (2014).
5. Milana, G., Olmati, P., Gkoumas, K., and Bontempi,
F. Ultimate capacity of diagrid systems for tall buildings
in nominal con guration and damaged state",
Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering, 59(3), pp.
381{391 (2015).
6. Kamath, K., Hirannaiah, S., and Noronha, J.C.K.B.
An analytical study on performance of a diagrid
structure using nonlinear static pushover analysis",
Perspectives in Science, 8, pp. 90{92 (2016).
7. Moon, K. Optimal grid geometry of diagrid structures
for tall buildings", Architectural Science Review,
51(3), pp. 239{251 (2008).
8. Zhang, C., Zhao, F., and Liu, Y. Diagrid tube structures
composed of straight diagonals with gradually
varying angles", The Structural Design of Tall and
Special Buildings, 21(4), pp. 283{295 (2012).
9. Baker, W., Besjak, C., Sarkisian, M., Lee, P., and Doo,
C.-S. Proposed methodology to determine seismic
performance factors for steel diagrid framed systems",
CTBUH Technical Paper, Council of Tall Buildings
and Urban Habitat (2010).
10. PERFORM-3D/ Nonlinear Analysis and Performance
Assessment for 3D Structures, Computer & Structures
Inc., Berkeley, CA (2007).
11. Akbari Hamed, A. and Mo d, M. Parametric study
and computation of seismic performance factors of
braced shear panels", Scientia Iranica, A, 23(2), pp.
460{474 (2016).
12. Asghari, A. and Azimi, B. Evaluation of sensitivity
of CBFs for types of bracing and story numbers",
Scientia Iranica, A, 24(1), pp. 40{52 (2017).
13. Attia, W.A. and Irheem, M.M.M. Boundary condition
e ect on response modi cation factor of Xbraced
steel frames", HBRC Journal, 14(1), pp. 104{
121 (2018).
14. Etedali, S. and Irandegani, M.A. A proposed lateral
load pattern for pushover analysis of structures subjected
to earthquake excitations", Journal of Vibro-
Engineering, 17(3), pp. 1363{1371 (2015).
15. Rofooei, F.R. and Mirjalili, M.R. Dynamic-based
pushover analysis for one-way plan asymmetric buildings",
Engineering Structures, 163, pp. 332{346
(2018).
16. Liu, Y., Kuang, J.S., and Huang, Q. Extended
spectrum-based pushover analysis for predicting
earthquake-induced forces in tall buildings", Engineering
Structures, 167, pp. 351{362 (2018).
17. Estekanchi, H.E., Vafai, A., and Basim, M.Ch. Design
and assessment of seismic resilient structures by the
endurance time method", Scientia Iranica, A, 23(4),
pp. 1648{1657 (2016).
18. Causevic, M. and Mitrovic, S. Comparison between
non-linear dynamic and static seismic analysis of
structures according to European and US provisions",
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 9(2), pp. 467{489
(2011).
19. Mourad, B. and Sabah, M. Comparison between
static nonlinear and time history analysis using

exibility-based model for an existing structure and effect
of taking into account soil using domain reduction
method for a single media", KSCE Journal of Civil
Engineering, 19(3), pp. 651{663 (2015).
20. Li, S., Zuo, Z., Zhai, C., and Xie, L. Comparison of
static pushover and dynamic analyses using RC building
shaking table experiment", Engineering Structures,
136, pp. 430{440 (2017).
21. Endo, Y., Pela, L., and Roca, P. Review of di erent
pushover analysis methods applied to masonry buildings
and comparison with nonlinear dynamic analysis",
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 21(8), pp. 1234{
1255 (2017).
22. FEMA P-695 Quanti cation of building seismic performance
factors", ATC-63 Report, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, DC (2009).
23. OpenSees Open system for earthquake engineering
simulation", version 2.4.5, Paci c Earthquake Engineering
Research Center: University of California,
Berkeley, from: http://opensees.berkeley.edu/ (2013).
24. ASCE 41-13, Seismic evaluation and retro t of existing
buildings", American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, Virginis (2014).
25. Kim, J. and Choi, H. Response modi cation factors
of chevron-braced frames", Engineering Structures,
27(2), pp. 285{300 (2005).
26. NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture Evaluation of the
FEMA P-695 methodology for quanti cation of building
seismic performance factors", National Institute
of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8600 (2010).
27. Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C.A. Incremental dynamic
analysis", Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 31(3), pp. 491{514 (2002).
28. McCain, I. (n.d.) Diagrid: structural eciency and
increasing popularity", from: http://www.dsg.fgg.unilj.
si/dubaj2009/images/stories/
Diagrid%20tehnologija.pdf, Retrieved October,
15 (2016).
29. ASCE 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, VA (2010).
A. Seyedkazemi and F. Rahimzadeh Rofooei/Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 28 (2021) 124{137 137
30. AISC 360-10, Speci cation for Structural Steel Building,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago,
IL (2010).
31. ETABS/ Integrated Building Design Software, Computers
and Structures Inc., Berkeley, CA (2013).
32. Menegotto, M. and Pinto, P.E. Method of analysis for
cyclically loaded R.C. plane frames including changes
in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under
combined normal force and bending", IABSE Symposium
on the Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of
Structures Acted on by Well De ned Repeated Loads,
Zurich, Switzerland (1973).
33. Uriz, P., Filippou, F.C., and Mahin, S.A. Model for
cyclic inelastic buckling of steel braces", Journal of
Structural Engineering, 134(4), pp. 619{628 (2008).
34. Requena, M. and Ayala, G. Evaluation of a simpli ed
method for the determination of the non-linear seismic
response of RC frames", Proceedings of the Twelfth
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper
2109, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering,
Upper Hutt, New Zealand (2000).
35. Antoniou, S. and Pinho, R. Advantages and limitations
of adaptive and non-adaptive force-based
pushover procedures", Journal of Earthquake Engineering,
8(4), pp. 497{522 (2008).
36. Antoniou, S. and Pinho, R. Development and veri
cation of a displacement-based adaptive pushover
procedure", Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 8(5),
pp. 643{661 (2008).
37. Ibarra, L.F. and Krawinkler, H. Global collapse of
frame structures under seismic excitations", Technical
Report No. 152, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering
Center, Stanford, CA, 324 (2005).