Steel and Composite Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of ground motion scaling methods on drift demands of energy-based plastic designed steel frames under near-fault pulse-type earthquakes

  • Received : 2018.08.09
  • Accepted : 2019.05.23
  • Published : 2019.07.10
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In the present study, the effects of six different ground motion scaling methods on inelastic response of nonlinear steel moment frames (SMFs) are studied. The frames were designed using energy-based PBPD approach with the design concept using pre-selected target drift and yield mechanism as performance limit state. Two target spectrums are considered: maximum credible earthquake spectrum (MCE) and design response spectrum (DRS). In order to investigate the effects of ground motion scaling methods on the response of the structures, totally 3216 nonlinear models including three frames with 4, 8 and 16 stories are designed using PBPD approach and then they are subjected to ensembles of ground motions including 42 far-fault and 90 near-fault pulse-type records which were scaled using the six different scaling methods in accordance to the two aforementioned target spectrums. The distributions of maximum inter-story drift over the height of the structures are computed and compared. Finally, the efficiency and reliability of each ground motion scaling method to estimate the maximum nonlinear inter-story drift of special steel moment frames designed by energy-based PBPD approach are statistically investigated, and the most suitable scaling methods with the lowest dispersion for two groups of earthquake ground motions are introduced.

Keywords

References

  1. Abedi-Nik, F. and Khoshnoudian, F. (2014), "Evaluation of ground motion scaling methods in soil-structure interaction analysis", Struct. Des. Tall Special Build., 23(1), 54-66. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1021
  2. Alavi, B. and Krawinkler, H. (2000), "Consideration of near-fault ground motion effects in seismic design", Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, p. 8.
  3. ASCE/SEI 7-05 (2005), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures; American Society of Civil Engineers, VA, USA. https:// doi.org/10.1061/9780784408094
  4. ASCE/SEI 7-10 (2016), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures; American Society of Civil Engineers, VA, USA. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.10.048
  5. Baker, J.W. and Allin Cornell, C. (2005), "A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 34(10), 1193-1217. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.474
  6. Baker, J.W. and Allin Cornell, C. (2006), "Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 35(9), 1077-1095. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.571
  7. Baker, J.W., Lin, T., Shahi, S.K. and Jayaram, N. (2011), New ground motion selection procedures and selected motions for the PEER transportation research program; Report No. 3, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
  8. Banihashemi, M.R., Mirzagoltabar, A.R. and Tavakoli, H.R. (2015), "Development of the performance based plastic design for steel moment resistant frame", Int. J. Steel Struct., 15(1), 51-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-015-3004-6
  9. Beiraghi, H. (2018), "Energy demands in reinforced concrete wall piers coupled by buckling restrained braces subjected to nearfault earthquake", Steel Compos. Struct., Int. J., 27(6), 703-716. https://doi.org/ 10.12989/scs.2018.27.6.703
  10. Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) (2015), NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures; Volume 1: Part 1 Provisions, Part 2 Commentary, FEMA P-1050-1, Washington, D.C., USA, 555. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1278
  11. Chan-Anan, W., Leelataviwat, S. and Goel, S. C. (2016), "Performance-based plastic design method for tall hybrid coupled walls", Struct. Des. Tall Special Build., 25(14), 681-699. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1278
  12. Chao, S.H. and Goel, S.C. (2006), "Performance-based seismic design of eccentrically braced frames using target drift and yield mechanism as performance criteria", Eng. J.-Am. Inst. Steel Constr. Inc., 43(3), 173-200. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.13.5.443
  13. Cordova, P.P., Deierlein, G.G., Mehanny, S.S. and Cornell, C.A. (2000), "Development of a Two-Parameter Seismic Intensity Measure and Probabilistic Assessment Procedure", In: The second US-Japan workshop on performance-based earthquake engineering methodology for reinforced concrete building structures, pp. 187-206.
  14. Fakhraddini, A., Fadaee, M.J. and Saffari, H. (2018a), "A lateral load pattern based on energy evaluation for eccentrically braced frames", Steel Compos. Struct., Int. J., 27(5), 623-632. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2018.27.5.623
  15. Fakhraddini, A., Saffari, H. and Fadaee, M.J. (2018b), "A hybrid force/displacement seismic design method for steel eccentrically braced frames", Asian J. Civil Eng., 19(1), 93-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-018-0010-y
  16. FEMA-440 (2005), Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures; Redwood City, CA, USA.
  17. Ganjavi, B. and Gholamrezatabar, A. (2018), "More adequate seismic design force pattern for yielding structures considering structural and ground motion uncertainties effects", Struct. Des. Tall Special Build.; e1537. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1537
  18. Ganjavi, B. and Hao, H. (2013), "Optimum lateral load pattern for seismic design of elastic shear-buildings incorporating soil-structure interaction effects", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 42(6), 913-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2252
  19. Ganjavi, B., Hajirasouliha, I. and Bolourchi, A. (2016), "Optimum lateral load distribution for seismic design of nonlinear shearbuildings considering soil-structure interaction", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 88, 356-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.07.003
  20. Ganjavi, B., Gholamrezatabar, A. and Hajirasouliha, I. (2019), "Effects of Soil-Structure Interaction and Lateral Design Load Pattern on Performance-Based Plastic Design of Steel Moment Resisting Frames", Struct. Des. Tall Special Build., 24(1). [In Press] https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1624
  21. Ghowsi, A.F. and Sahoo, D.R. (2015), "Fragility assessment of buckling-restrained braced frames under near-field earthquakes", Steel Compos. Struct., Int. J., 19(1), 173-190. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2015.19.1.173
  22. Goel, S.C., Liao, W.C., Reza Bayat, M. and Chao, S.H. (2010), "Performance-based plastic design (PBPD) method for earthquake-resistant structures: an overview", Struct. Des. Tall Special Build., 19(1-2), 115-137. https://doi.org/ 10.1051/matecconf/201925805014
  23. Hajirasouliha, I. and Moghaddam, H. (2009), "New lateral force distribution for seismic design of structures", J. Struct. Eng., 135(8), 906-915. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)135:8(906)
  24. Hajirasouliha, I. and Pilakoutas, K. (2012), "General seismic load distribution for optimum performance-based design of shearbuildings", J. Earthq. Eng., 16(4) 443-462. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2012.654897
  25. Hajirasouliha, I., Pilakoutas, K., Reza K. and Mohammadi, R.K (2016), "Effects of uncertainties on seismic behaviour of optimum designed braced steel frames", Steel Compos. Struct., Int. J., 20(2), 317-335. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2016.20.2.317
  26. Heo, Y., Kunnath, S.K. and Abrahamson, N. (2010), "Amplitudescaled versus spectrum-matched ground motions for seismic performance assessment", J. Struct. Eng., 137(3), 278-288. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000340
  27. Huang, Y.N., Whittaker, A.S., Luco, N. and Hamburger, R.O. (2009), "Scaling earthquake ground motions for performancebased assessment of buildings", J. Struct. Eng., 137(3), 311-321. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2012-0339
  28. International Building Code (IBC) (2015), Country Club Hills, IL, USA, International Code Council, Inc.
  29. Kalkan, E. and Chopra, A.K. (2010), "Practical guidelines to select and scale earthquake records for nonlinear response history analysis of structures", Report No. 1068; US geological survey open-file report, 126.
  30. Lee, S.S. (2002), "Performance-based design of steel moment frames using target drift and yield mechanism", Ph.D. Dissertation; University of Michigan, MI, USA.
  31. Leelataviwat, S., Goel, S.C. and Stojadinovic, B. (1998), "Drift And Yield Mechanism Based Seismic Design And Upgrading Of Steel Moment Frames", Univ of Michigan, 98(29).
  32. Luco, N. and Bazzurro, P. (2007), "Does amplitude scaling of ground motion records result in biased nonlinear structural drift responses?", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 36(13), 1813-1835. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.695
  33. Luco, N. and Cornell, C.A. (2007), "Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions", Earthq. Spectra, 23(2), 357-392. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2723158
  34. MATLAB (2014), The Math Works, Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, United States.
  35. Mortezaie, H. and Rezaie, F. (2018), "Effect of soil in controlling the seismic response of three-dimensional PBPD high-rise concrete structures", Struct. Eng. Mech., Int. J., 66(2), 217-227. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2018.66.2.217
  36. Naeim, F., Alimoradi, A. and Pezeshk, S. (2004), "Selection and Scaling Of Ground Motion Time Histories for Structural Design Using Genetic Algorithms", Earthq. Spectra, 20(2), 413-426. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1719028
  37. Newmark, N.M. and Hall, W.J. (1973), "Seismic Design Criteria for Nuclear Reactor Facilities", Report No. 46, Building Practices for Disaster Mitigation, National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce, pp. 209-236.
  38. OPENSEES (2016), OpenSees command language manual, Open system for earthquake engineering simulation. http://opensees.berkeley.edu/
  39. Park, K. (2007), "Lateral load patterns for the conceptual seismic design of moment-resisting frame structures", Ph.D. Dissertation; University of Maryland, MD, USA.
  40. Roy, R., Thakur, P. and Chakroborty, S. (2014), "Scaling of ground motions and its implications to plan-asymmetric structures", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 57, 46-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.11.003
  41. Shome, N., Cornell, C.A., Bazzurro, P. and Carballo, J.E. (1998), "Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses", Earthq. Spectra, 14(3), 469-500. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586011
  42. Sumer, A., Kersting, R.A. and Hutchinson, D.A. (2009), "Nonlinear analysis of pre-Northridge steel high-rise building using modal-pushover-based ground motion scaling procedure", In: Improving the Seismic Performance of Existing Buildings and Other Structures, pp. 103-113.
  43. USGS Website: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/hazmaps/
  44. Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C.A. (2002), "Incremental dynamic analysis", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(3), 491-514. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141
  45. Weng, Y.T., Tsai, K.C. and Chan, Y.R. (2010), "A ground motion scaling method considering higher-mode effects and structural characteristics", Earthq. Spectra, 26(3), 841-867. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3460374

Cited by

  1. Energy factor of high-strength-steel frames with energy dissipation bays under repeated near-field earthquakes vol.40, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2021.40.3.369