Steel and Composite Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Seismic response estimation of steel buildings with deep columns and PMRF

  • Reyes-Salazar, Alfredo (Facultad de Ingenieria, Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa, Ciudad Universitaria) ;
  • Soto-Lopez, Manuel E. (Facultad de Ingenieria, Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa, Ciudad Universitaria) ;
  • Gaxiola-Camacho, Jose R. (Facultad de Ingenieria, Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa, Ciudad Universitaria) ;
  • Bojorquez, Eden (Facultad de Ingenieria, Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa, Ciudad Universitaria) ;
  • Lopez-Barraza, Arturo (Facultad de Ingenieria, Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa, Ciudad Universitaria)
  • Received : 2013.06.25
  • Accepted : 2014.04.13
  • Published : 2014.10.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The responses of steel buildings with perimeter moment resisting frames (PMRF) with medium size columns (W14) are estimated and compared with those of buildings with deep columns (W27), which are selected according to two criteria: equivalent resistance and equivalent weight. It is shown that buildings with W27 columns have no problems of lateral torsional, local or shear buckling in panel zone. Whether the response is larger for W14 or W27 columns, depends on the level of deformation, the response parameter and the structural modeling under consideration. Modeling buildings as two-dimensional structures result in an overestimation of the response. For multiple response parameters, the W14 columns produce larger responses for elastic behavior. The axial load on columns may be significantly larger for the buildings with W14 columns. The interstory displacements are always larger for W14 columns, particularly for equivalent weight and plane models, implying that using deep columns helps to reduce interstory displacements. This is particularly important for tall buildings where the design is usually controlled by the drift limit state. The interstory shears in interior gravity frames (GF) are significantly reduced when deep columns are used. This helps to counteract the no conservative effect that results in design practice, when lateral seismic loads are not considered in GF of steel buildings with PMRF. Thus, the behavior of steel buildings with deep columns, in general, may be superior to that of buildings with medium columns, using less weight and representing, therefore, a lower cost.

Keywords

References

  1. AISC (2005a), Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA.
  2. AISC (2005b), Steel Construction Manual, (13th Edition), American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA.
  3. Black, E.F. (2012), "Inelastic parameter estimates for regular steel moment-resisting frames", Eng. Struct., 34, 33-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.09.011
  4. BOCA (1993), Building Officials & Code Administration International Inc., (12th Edition), National Building Code.
  5. Chang, H.Y., Jay Lin, C.C., Lin, K.C. and Chen J.Y. (2009), "Role of accidental torsion in seismic reliability assessment for steel buildings", Steel Compos. Struct., Int. J., 9(5), 457-471. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2009.9.5.457
  6. FEMA 350 (2000), Federal Emergency Management Agency, Report 350, "Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame buildings", Washington, D.C., USA.
  7. Foutch, A. and Yun, S.Y. (2002), "Modeling of steel moment frames for seismic loads", J. Construct. Steel Res., 58(5-8), 529-564. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0143-974X(01)00078-5
  8. Gao, L. and Haldar, A. (1995), "Nonlinear seismic analysis of space structures with partially restrained connections", Int. J. Microcomput. Civil Eng., 10(1), 27-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8667.1995.tb00383.x
  9. Gupta, A. and Krawinkler, H. (2000), "Behavior of ductile SMRFs at various seismic hazard levels", J. Struct. Eng., 126(1), 98-107. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:1(98)
  10. Kaveh, A. and Dadfar, B. (2008), "Optimum seismic design of steel moment resisting frames by genetic algorithms", Asian J. Civil Eng. (Building and Housing), 9(2), 107-129.
  11. Kazantzi, A.K., Righiniotis, T.D. and Chryssanthopoulos, M.K. (2008), "Fragility and hazard analysis of a welded steel moment resisting frame", J. Earthq. Eng., 12(4), 596-615. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460701512993
  12. Krishnan, S., Ji, C., Komatitsch, D. and Tromp, J. (2006), "Performance of two 18-storey steel momentframe building in southern California during two large simulated San Andres Earthquakes", Earthq. Spectra, 22(4), 1035-1061. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2360698
  13. Lee, K. and Foutch, D.A. (2001), "Performance evaluation of new steel frame buildings for seismic loads", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(3), 653-670.
  14. Lee, K. and Foutch, D.A. (2006), "Seismic evaluation of steel moment frames buildings designed using different R-values", J. Struct. Eng. Div., ASCE, 132(9), 1461-1472. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:9(1461)
  15. Liao, K.W., Wen, Y.K. and Foutch, D.A. (2007), "Evaluation of 3D steel moment frames under earthquake excitations I: Modeling", J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 133(3), 462-470. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:3(462)
  16. Mahadevan, S. and Haldar, A. (1991), "Stochastic FEM-Based Evaluation of LRFD", J. Struct. Eng. Div., ASCE, 117(5), 1393-1412. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1991)117:5(1393)
  17. Mele, E., Di Sarno, L. and De Luca, A. (2004), "Seismic behavior of perimeter and spatial steel frames", J. Earthq. Eng., 8(3), 457-496.
  18. Reyes-Salazar, A. (1997), "Inelastic seismic response and ductility evaluation of steel frames with fully, partially restrained and composite connections", Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
  19. Reyes-Salazar, A. and Haldar, A. (2001a) "Energy dissipation at PR frames under seismic loading", J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 127(5), 588-593. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2001)127:5(588)
  20. Reyes-Salazar, A. and Haldar, A. (2001b), "Seismic response and energy dissipation in partially restrained and fully restrained steel frames: An analytical study", Steel Compos. Struct., Int. J., 1(4), 459-480. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2001.1.4.459
  21. SAC (1996), Northridge Model Buildings, Internal Report for SAC Researchers, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, CA, USA.
  22. Sejal, P.D., Vasanwala, S.A. and Desai, A.K. (2012), "Comparison of steel moment resisting frame designed by elastic design and performance based plastic design method based on the inelastic response analysis", Int. J. Civil Struct. Eng., 2(4), DOI: 10.6088/ijcser.00202040007
  23. Shao, D. and Hale, T. (2004), "Full scale testing and project application of sideplate moment connection for SMRF using deep columns", 2004 SEAOC Convention, Monterey, CA, USA, August.
  24. Shen, J., Astaneh-Asl, A. and McCallen, D.B. (2002), "Use of deep columns in special steel moment frames", Struct. Steel Edu. Council, Steel TIPS, 5-16.
  25. UBC (1994), Structural Engineering Design Provisions, Uniform Building Code (Volume 2), International Conference of Building Officials.
  26. Zhang, X., Ricles, J.M., Lu, L.W. and Fisher, J.W. (2004), "Analytical and experimental studies on seismic behavior of deep column-to-beam welded reduced beam section moment connections", 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, August.

Cited by

  1. Seismic Collapse Response of Steel Moment Frames with Deep Columns vol.144, pp.9, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002150
  2. Alternative reliability-based methodology for evaluation of structures excited by earthquakes vol.14, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2018.14.4.361
  3. Development and testing of cored moment resisting stub column dampers vol.34, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2020.34.1.107