Probabilistic seismic demand assessment of steel moment-resisting frames with mass irregularity in height

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Department of Civil Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Civil Engineering, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Ductility with direct effect on the response modification factor of buildings can influence their seismic performance. Moreover, some factors such as geometry and different types of irregularity can affect the ductility and seismic performance of structures. In this study, the effects of mass irregularity in height on the over strength, ductility, response modification factors and probabilistic seismic performance in steel Moment Resisting Frames (MRFs) are assessed. Then, the obtained results are compared with those of regular structures. For this purpose, incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is implemented using ten records out of past worldwide earthquakes. The location of mass concentration in height is studied assessing 8-, 12- and 16-storey buildings with their mass concentrated at the first floor, mid-height and roof. Then, the probabilistic seismic responses of these structures are evaluated using the outputs of IDA. In this regard, probabilistic seismic demand analysis is conducted on each model. The obtained results are used to plot the seismic fragility and demand curves for both regular and irregular models. Based on the findings, mass irregularity causes the reduction of ductility and response modification factors. This effect increases when the heavier storey is located either at the first floor or at roof. Moreover, mass irregularity brings about the increase in probability of damage occurrence or its exceedance from a certain level.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

References:
1. ATC-3-06, Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings, Applied Technology Council (1978).
2. ATC-19, Structural Response Modification Factor, Applied Technology Council (1995).
3. ATC-34, A Critical Review of Current Approaches to Earthquake-Resistant Design, Applied Technology Council (1995).
4. Pirizadeh, M. and Shakib, H. "Probabilistic seismic performance evaluation of non-geometric vertically irregular steel buildings", Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 82, pp. 88-98 (2013).
5. Li, W., Xu, P., Wang, H., and Lu, X. "A new method for calculating the thermal effects of irregular internal mass in buildings under demand response", Energy and Buildings, 130, pp. 761-772 (2016).
6. Sang, W.H., Tae-O, Kim., Dong, H.K., and Seong-Jin, B. "Seismic collapse performance of special moment steel frames with torsional irregularities", Engineering Structures, 141, pp. 482-494 (2017).
7. Valmundsson, E.V. and Nau, J.M. "Seismic response of building frames with vertical structural engineering", ASCE Journal, 123(1),pp. 30-41 (1997).
8. Al-Ali, A. and Krawinkler, H. "Effects of vertical irregularities on seismic behavior of building structures", PhD Thesis, Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (1998).
9. Tremblay, R. and Poncet, L. "Seismic performance of concentrically braced steel frames in multistory buildings with mass irregularity", Journal of Structural Engineering, 131(1), pp. 1363-1375 (2005).
10. Kim, J. and Hong, S. "Progressive collapse performance of irregular buildings", The Structural Design of Tall Special Buildings, 20(6), pp. 721-734 (2011).
11. BHRC, Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistance Design of Buildings, Standard No. 2800-5, 3rd Edition. Building and Housing Research Center (2005).
12. MHUD, Iranian National Building Code, Part 10, Steel Structure Design, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (2008).
13. AISC-360, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, American institute of steel construction (2010).
14. FEMA-350, Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment Frame Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000).
15. UBC-97, International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform building Code (1997).
16. Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Scott, M.H., Fenves, G.L., and Jeremic, B. OpenSees Command Language Manual, Berkely, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center, Univ, California at Berkely (2007).
17. Nader, M.N. and Astaneh Asl, A. "Dynamic behavior of  flexible, semi-rigid and rigid steel frames", Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 18, pp. 179-192 (1991).
18. Brunesi, E., Nascimbene, R., and Rassati, G.A. "Response of partially-restrained bolted beam-to-column connections under cyclic loads", Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 97, pp. 24-38 (2014).
19. Brunesi, E., Nascimbene, R., and Rassati, G.A. "Seismic response of MRFs with partially-restrained bolted beam-to-column connections through FE analyses", Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 107, pp. 37- 49 (2015).
20. Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C.A. "Incremental dynamic analysis", Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31(3), pp. 491-514 (2002).
21. Stewart, J.P., Chiou, S.J., Bray, J.D., Garves, R.W., Somerville, P.G., and Abrahamson, N.A. "Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance based design", Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22, pp. 765-772 (2002).
22. Asgarian, B., Sadrinezhad, A., and Alanjari, P. "Seismic performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frames through incremental dynamic analysis", Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 66, pp. 178-190 (2010).
23. Uang, C.M. "Establishing R or (Rw) and Cd factor building seismic provision", Structural Engineering, 117(1), pp. 19-28 (1991).
24. Fanaie, N. and Ezzatshoar, S. "Studying the seismic behavior of gate braced frames by incremental dynamic analysis (IDA)", Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 99, pp. 111-120 (2014).
25. Mwafy, A.M. and Elnashai, A.S. "Calibration of force reduction factors of RC buildings", Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 6(2), pp. 239-273 (2002).
26. Massumi, A., Tasnimi, A.A., and Saatcioglu, M. "Prediction of seismic overstrength in concrete moment resisting frames using incremental static and dynamic analysis", 13th World. Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C, Canada (2004).
27. Cordova, P.P., Deierlein, G.G., Mehanny, S.S.F., and Cornell, C.A. "Development of two-parameter seismic intensity measure and probabilistic assessment procedure", 2nd U.S. - Japan Workshop on Performancebased Earthquake Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete Building Structures, Sapporo, Japan, pp. 187-206 (2001).
28. Hutchinson, T.C., Chai, Y.H., Boulanger, R.W., and Idriss, I.M. "Inelastic seismic response of extended pile-shaft-supported bridge structures", Earthquake Spectra, 20(4), pp. 1057-1080 (2004).
29. Shome, N., Cornell, C.A., Bazzurro, P., and Eduardo, C.J. "Earthquakes, records and nonlinear responses", Earthquake Spectra, 14(3), pp. 469-500 (1998).
30. Luco, N. and Cornell, C.A. "Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions", Earthquake Spectra, 23(3), pp. 357-392 (2007).
31. Aslani, H. "Probabilistic earthquake loss estimation and loss disaggregation in buildings", PhD Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (2005).
32. Wen, Y.K. and Ellingwood, B.R. "The role of fragility assessment in consequence-based engineering", Earthquake Spectra, 21(3), pp. 861-877 (2005).
33. Luco, N., Mai, P.M., Cornell, C.A., and Beroza, G.C. "Probabilistic seismic demand analysis at a near fault site using ground motion simulations based on a stochastic kinematic earthquake source model", 7th Int. Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Boston, Massachusetts (2002).
34. Porter, K.A. "An overview of peer's performancebased earthquake engineering methodology", 9th Int. Conf. on Applications of Statistics and Probability Civil Engineering (ICASP9), Civil Engineering Risk and Reliability Association (CERRA), San Francisco, CA (2003).
35. Sewell, R.T., Toro, G.R., and McGuire, R.K. "Impact of ground motion characterization on conservatism and variability in seismic risk estimates", Report NUREG/CR-6467, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. (1991).
36. Jalayer, F. and Cornell, C. "A technical framework for probability-based demand and capacity factor design (DCFD) seismic formats", PEER Report 2003/08, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley (2003).
37. FEMA-356, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000).
Scientia Iranica
Volume 26, Issue 3
Transactions on Civil Engineering (A)
May and June 2019
Pages 1156-1168

Files

Cited by

History

  • Receive Date: 11 January 2017
  • Revise Date: 26 June 2017
  • Accept Date: 11 September 2017

Share

How to cite

Statistics