Steel and Composite Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Behavior of semi-rigid steel frames under near- and far-field earthquakes

  • Sharma, Vijay (Department of Civil Engineering, Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur) ;
  • Shrimali, Mahendra K. (National Centre for Disaster Mitigation and Management, Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur) ;
  • Bharti, Shiv D. (National Centre for Disaster Mitigation and Management, Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur) ;
  • Datta, Tushar K. (National Centre for Disaster Mitigation and Management, Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur)
  • Received : 2019.03.29
  • Accepted : 2019.12.30
  • Published : 2020.03.10
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The realistic modeling of the beam-column semi-rigid connection in steel frames attracted the attention of many researchers in the past for the seismic analysis of semi-rigid frames. Comparatively less studies have been made to investigate the behavior of steel frames with semi-rigid connections under different types of earthquake. Herein, the seismic behavior of semi-rigid steel frames is investigated under both far and near-field earthquakes. The semi-rigid connection is modeled by the multilinear plastic link element consisting of rotational springs. The kinematic hysteresis model is used to define the dynamic behavior of the rotational spring, describing the nonlinearity of the semi-rigid connection as defined in SAP2000. The nonlinear time history analysis (NTHA) is performed to obtain response time histories of the frame under scaled earthquakes at three PGA levels denoting the low, medium and high-level earthquakes. The other important parameters varied are the stiffness and strength parameters of the connections, defining the degree of semi-rigidity. For studying the behavior of the semi-rigid frame, a large number of seismic demand parameters are considered. The benchmark for comparison is taken as those of the corresponding rigid frame. Two different frames, namely, a five-story frame and a ten-story frame are considered as the numerical examples. It is shown that semi-rigid frames prove to be effective and beneficial in resisting the seismic forces for near-field earthquakes (PGA ≈ 0.2g), especially in reducing the base shear to a considerable extent for the moderate level of earthquake. Further, the semi-rigid frame with a relatively weaker beam and less connection stiffness may withstand a moderately strong earthquake without having much damage in the beams.

Keywords

References

  1. Abdollahzadeh, G., Faghihmaleki, H. and Esmaili, H. (2016), "Comparing Hysteretic Energy and inter-story drift in steel frames with V-shaped brace under near and far fault earthquakes", Alexandria Eng. J., 57(1), 301-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2016.09.015.
  2. Akkar, S., Yazgan, U. and Gulkan, P. (2005), "Drift estimates in frame buildings subjected to near-fault ground motions", J. Struct. Eng., 131(7), 1014-1024. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:7(1014).
  3. Aksoylar, N.D., Elnashai, A.S. and Mahmoud, H. (2011), "The design and seismic performance of low-rise long-span frames with semi-rigid connections", J. Constr. Steel Res., 67(1), 114-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.07.001.
  4. Al-Bermani, F., Li, B., Zhu, K. and Kitipornchai, S. (1994), "Cyclic and seismic response of flexibly jointed frames", Eng. Struct., 16(4), 249-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-0296(94)90064-7.
  5. Alavi, B. and Krawinkler, H. (2004), "Behavior of moment-resisting frame structures subjected to near-fault ground motions", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 33(6), 687-706. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.369.
  6. ANSI/AISC-341 (2010), Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, Chicago, Illinois 60601-1802.
  7. ANSI/AISC-341 (2016), Seismic Provision for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago.
  8. Archuleta, R.J. and Hartzell, S.H. (1981), "Effects of fault finiteness on near-source ground motion", Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 71(4), 939-957. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0710040939
  9. ASCE-41 (2017), ASCE 41-17: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings,
  10. Asgarian, B., Norouzi, A., Alanjari, P. and Mirtaheri, M. (2012), "Evaluation of seismic performance of moment resisting frames considering vertical component of ground motion", Adv. Struct. Eng., 15(8), 1439-1453. https://doi.org/10.1260/1369-4332.15.8.1439.
  11. Bayat, M. and Zahrai, S.M. (2017), "Seismic performance of mid-rise steel frames with semi-rigid connections having different moment capacity", Steel Compos. Struct., 25(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2017.25.1.001.
  12. Bertero, V.V., Mahin, S.A. and Herrera, R.A. (1978), "Aseismic design implications of near-fault San Fernando earthquake records", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 6(1), 31-42. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290060105.
  13. Bray, J.D. and Rodriguez-Marek, A. (2004), "Characterization of forward-directivity ground motions in the near-fault region", Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng., 24(11), 815-828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.05.001.
  14. Chan, S.L. and Chui, P.T. (2000), Non-linear static and cyclic analysis of steel frames with semi-rigid connections, Science Ltd, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, UK.
  15. Daryan, A.S., Sadri, M., Saberi, H., Saberi, V. and Moghadas, A.B. (2014), "Behavior of semi-rigid connections and semi-rigid frames", Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build., 23(3), 210-238. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1032.
  16. Davoodi, M., Sadjadi, M., Goljahani, P. and Kamalian, M. (2012). "Effects of near-field and far-field earthquakes on seismic response of sdof system considering soil structure interaction", Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Lisbon, Portugal.
  17. Della Corte, G., De Matteis, G., Landolfo, R. and Mazzolani, F. (2002), "Seismic analysis of MR steel frames based on refined hysteretic models of connections", J. Constr. Steel Res., 58(10), 1331-1345. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0143-974X(02)00014-7.
  18. Diaferio, M. (2018), "Performance of seismic shear panels under near-field motions", Int. J. Eng. Technol., 7(2), 196-200. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i2.23.11915
  19. Diaferio, M. and Foti, D. (2016), "Mechanical behavior of buildings subjected to impulsive motions", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 14(3), 849-862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9848-5.
  20. Diaz, C., Marti, P., Victoria, M. and Querin, O.M. (2011), "Review on the modelling of joint behaviour in steel frames", J. Constr. Steel Res., 67(5), 741-758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.12.014.
  21. Elnashai, A.S. and Elghazouli, A. (1994), "Seismic behaviour of semi-rigid steel frames", J. Constr. Steel Res., 29(1-3), 149-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/0143-974X(94)90060-4.
  22. Fang, C., Izzuddin, B., Elghazouli, A. and Nethercot, D. (2013), "Modeling of semi-rigid beam-to-column steel joints under extreme loading", Front. Struct. Civil Eng., 7(3), 245-263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-013-0215-9.
  23. Faridmehr, I., Tahir, M.M. and Lahmer, T. (2016), "Classification System for Semi-Rigid Beam-to-Column Connections", Latin Am. J. Solids Struct., 13(11), 2152-2175. https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-78252595.
  24. Faridmehr, I., Tahir, M.M., Lahmer, T. and Osman, M.H. (2017), "Seismic performance of steel frames with semirigid connections", J. Eng., 2017.
  25. Fathi, M., Daneshjoo, F. and Melchers, R. (2006), "A method for determining the behaviour factor of moment-resisting steel frames with semi-rigid connections", Eng. Struct., 28(4), 514-531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.09.006.
  26. Feizi, M.G., Mojtahedi, A. and Nourani, V. (2015), "Effect of semi-rigid connections in improvement of seismic performance of steel moment-resisting frames", Steel Compos. Struct., 19(2), 467-484. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2015.19.2.467.
  27. FEMA-P695 (2009), Quantification of building seismic performance factors, Federal Emergency Management Agency
  28. Foti, D. (2014), "On the seismic response of protected and unprotected middle-rise steel frames in far-field and near-field areas", Shock Vibration, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/393870.
  29. Foti, D. (2014), "Response of frames seismically protected with passive systems in near-field areas", Int. J. Struct. Eng., 5(4), 326-345. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSTRUCTE.2014.065916
  30. Foti, D. (2015), "Local ground effects in near-field and far-field areas on seismically protected buildings", Soil Dynam, Earthq, Eng., 74, 14-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.03.005.
  31. Frye, M.J. and Morris, G.A. (1975), "Analysis of flexibly connected steel frames", Canadian J. Civil Eng., 2(3), 280-291. https://doi.org/10.1139/l75-026.
  32. Hall, J.F., Heaton, T.H., Halling, M.W. and Wald, D.J. (1995), "Near-source ground motion and its effects on flexible buildings", Earthq. Spectra. 11(4), 569-605. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585828.
  33. Heaton, T.H., Hall, J.F., Wald, D.J. and Halling, M.W. (1995), "Response of high-rise and base-isolated buildings to a hypothetical Mw 7.0 blind thrust earthquake", Science. 267(5195), 206-211. DOI: 10.1126/science.267.5195.206.
  34. Housner, G. and Trifunac, M. (1967), "Analysis of accelerograms-Parkfield earthquake", Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 57(6), 1193-1220. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0570061193
  35. Huang, C.-T. (2003), "Considerations of multimode structural response for near-field earthquakes", J. Eng. Mech., 129(4), 458-467. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2003)129:4(458).
  36. IS-800 (2007), General Construction in Steel-Code of Practice (Third Revision)Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
  37. IS-875 (1987), Part 1: Dead loads - unit weights of building materials and stored materials Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
  38. IS-1893 (2016), Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, Part 1 General Provisions and Buildings (Sixth Revision), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
  39. Kalkan, E. and Kunnath, S.K. (2006), "Effects of fling step and forward directivity on seismic response of buildings", Earthq. Spectra. 22(2), 367-390. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2192560.
  40. Kishi, N. and Chen, W.-F. (1990), "Moment-rotation relations of semirigid connections with angles", J. Struct. Eng., 116(7), 1813-1834. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1990)116:7(1813).
  41. Kitipomchai, S., Al-Bermani, F.G. and Chan, S.L. (1990), "Elasto-plastic finite element models for angle steel frames", J. Struct. Eng., 116(10), 2567-2581. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1990)116:10(2567).
  42. Lemonis, M. (2018), "Steel moment resisting frames with both joint and beam dissipation zones", J. Constr. Steel Res., 147 224-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.03.020.
  43. Li, S. and Xie, L.l. (2007), "Progress and trend on near-field problems in civil engineering", Acta Seismologica Sinica, 20(1), 105-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11589-007-0105-0.
  44. Liu, Y., Xu, L. and Grierson, D.E. (2008), "Compound-element modeling accounting for semi-rigid connections and member plasticity", Eng. Struct., 30(5), 1292-1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.07.026.
  45. Lui, E. and Chen, W. (1987), "Steel frame analysis with flexible joints", J. Constr. Steel Res., 8, 161-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/0143-974X(87)90058-7.
  46. Mahmoud, H.N., Elnashai, A.S., Spencer Jr, B.F., Kwon, O.S. and Bennier, D.J. (2013), "Hybrid simulation for earthquake response of semirigid partial-strength steel frames", J. Struct. Eng., 139(7), 1134-1148. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000721.
  47. Malhotra, P.K. (1999), "Response of buildings to near-field pulse-like ground motions", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 28(11), 1309-1326. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199911)28:11<1309::AID-EQE868>3.0.CO;2-U.
  48. Mavroeidis, G., Dong, G. and Papageorgiou, A. (2004), "Near-fault ground motions, and the response of elastic and inelastic single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 33(9), 1023-1049. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.391.
  49. Mukhopadhyay, S. and Gupta, V.K. (2013), "Directivity pulses in near-fault ground motions-I: Identification, extraction and modeling", Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng., 50, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.02.017.
  50. Mukhopadhyay, S. and Gupta, V.K. (2013), "Directivity pulses in near-fault ground motions-II: Estimation of pulse parameters", Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng., 50, 38-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.02.019.
  51. Nader, M. and Astaneh, A. (1991), "Dynamic behavior of flexible, semirigid and rigid steel frames", J. Constr. Steel Res., 18(3), 179-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/0143-974X(91)90024-U.
  52. Najdian, M. and Izadinia, M. (2012). "Evaluation of seismic behavior on steel frames with TSW semi-rigid connections under the nonlinear time history analysis", Appl. Mech. Mater., 166-169, https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.166-169.2083.
  53. SAP2000v21 (2019), "Integrated Software for Structural Analysis and Design", Computers and structures Inc, Berkeley, CA, USA.
  54. Sehhati, R., Rodriguez-Marek, A., ElGawady, M. and Cofer, W.F. (2011), "Effects of near-fault ground motions and equivalent pulses on multi-story structures", Eng. Struct., 33(3), 767-779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.11.032.
  55. Shahbazi, S., Mansouri, I., Hu, J.W., Sam Daliri, N. and Karami, A. (2019), "Seismic response of steel SMFs subjected to vertical components of far-and near-field earthquakes with forward directivity effects", Adv. Civil Eng., 2019.
  56. Sharma, V., Shrimali, M., Bharti, S. and Datta, T. (2019), "Seismic energy dissipation in semi-rigid connected steel frames", Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Seismic Isolation, Energy Dissipation and Active Vibration Control of Structures, Saint Petersburg, Russia.
  57. Somerville, P.G., Smith, N.F., Graves, R.W. and Abrahamson, N.A. (1997), "Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity", Seismol. Res. Lett., 68(1), 199-222. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.68.1.199.
  58. Stamatopoulos, G.N. (2014), "Seismic response of steel frames considering the hysteretic behaviour of the semi-rigid supports", Int. J. Steel Struct., 14(3), 609-618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-014-3019-4.
  59. Wang, G.Q., Zhou, X.Y., Zhang, P.Z. and Igel, H. (2002), "Characteristics of amplitude and duration for near fault strong ground motion from the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake", Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng., 22(1), 73-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(01)00047-1.
  60. Yadav, K.K. and Gupta, V.K. (2017), "Near-fault fling-step ground motions: Characteristics and simulation", Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng., 101, 90-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.06.022.

Cited by

  1. Effect of moving resonance on the seismic responses under far-field and near-field earthquakes vol.22, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-020-00305-4
  2. Impact of directivity on seismic risk assessment: rupture distance, component and propagation length vol.22, pp.7, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-021-00388-7