Earthquakes and Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The effect of infill walls on the fundamental period of steel frames by considering soil-structure interaction

  • Received : 2022.09.01
  • Accepted : 2024.03.20
  • Published : 2024.06.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The fundamental period of vibration is one of the most critical parameters in the analysis and design of structures, as it depends on the distribution of stiffness and mass within the structure. Therefore, building codes propose empirical equations based on the observed periods of actual buildings during seismic events and ambient vibration tests. However, despite the fact that infill walls increase the stiffness and mass of the structure, causing significant changes in the fundamental period, most of these equations do not account for the presence of infills walls in the structure. Typically, these equations are dependent on both the structural system type and building height. The different values between the empirical and analytical periods are due to the elimination of non-structural effects in the analytical methods. Therefore, the presence of non-structural elements, such as infill panels, should be carefully considered. Another critical factor influencing the fundamental period is the effect of Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI). Most seismic building design codes generally consider SSI to be beneficial to the structural system under seismic loading, as it increases the fundamental period and leads to higher damping of the system. Recent case studies and postseismic observations suggest that SSI can have detrimental effects, and neglecting its impact could lead to unsafe design, especially for structures located on soft soil. The current research focuses on investigating the effect of infill panels on the fundamental period of moment-resisting and eccentrically braced steel frames while considering the influence of soil-structure interaction. To achieve this, the effects of building height, infill wall stiffness, infill openings and soil structure interactions were studied using 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18-story 3-D frames. These frames were modeled and analyzed using SeismoStruct software. The calculated values of the fundamental period were then compared with those obtained from the proposed equation in the seismic code. The results indicate that changing the number of stories and the soil type significantly affects the fundamental period of structures. Moreover, as the percentage of infill openings increases, the fundamental period of the structure increases almost linearly. Additionally, soil-structure interaction strongly affects the fundamental periods of structures, especially for more flexible soils. This effect is more pronounced when the infill wall stiffness is higher. In conclusion, new equations are proposed for predicting the fundamental periods of Moment Resisting Frame (MRF) and Eccentrically Braced Frame (EBF) buildings. These equations are functions of various parameters, including building height, modulus of elasticity, infill wall thickness, infill wall percentage, and soil types.

Keywords

References

  1. AISC Committee (ANSI/AISC 360-10) (2010), Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, USA.
  2. Al-Chaar, G., Lamb, G.E. and Issa, M.A. (2003), "Effect of openings on structural performance of unreinforced masonry infilled frames", ACI Spec. Publ., 211, 247-262. https://doi.org/10.14359/12593.
  3. American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE/SEI 41-17) (2017), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA.
  4. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 7) (2017), Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA.
  5. Asteris, P.G. (2003), "Lateral stiffness of brick masonry infilled plane frames", J. Struct. Eng., 129(8), 1071-1079. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:8(1071).
  6. Asteris, P.G. and Nikoo, M. (2019), "Artificial bee colony-based neural network for the prediction of the fundamental period of infilled frame structures", Neural Comput. Appl., 31(9), 4837-4847. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-018-03965-1.
  7. Asteris, P.G., Antoniou, S.T., Sophianopoulos, D.S. and Chrysostomou, C.Z. (2011), "Mathematical macromodeling of infilled frames: State of the art", J. Struct. Eng., 137(12), 1508-1517. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000384.
  8. Asteris, P.G., Cotsovos, D.M., Chrysostomou, C.Z., Mohebkhah, A. and Al-Chaar, G.K. (2013), "Mathematical micromodeling of infilled frames: State of the art", Eng. Struct., 56, 1905-1921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.08.010.
  9. Asteris, P.G., Repapis, C.C., Repapi, E.V. and Cavaleri, L. (2017), "Fundamental period of infilled reinforced concrete frame structures", Struct. Infrastr. Eng., 13(7), 929-941. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2016.1227341.
  10. Asteris, P.G., Repapis, C.C., Tsaris, A.K., Di Trapani, F. and Cavaleri, L. (2015), "Parameters affecting the fundamental period of infilled RC frame structures", Earthq. Struct., 9(5), 999-1028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.07.017.
  11. Canadian Commission on Building (2015), National Building Code of Canada (No. 2), Associate Committee on the National Building Code, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
  12. Charalampakis, A.E., Tsiatas, G.C. and Kotsiantis, S.B. (2020), "Machine learning and nonlinear models for the estimation of fundamental period of vibration of masonry infilled RC frame structures", Eng. Struct., 216, 110765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110765.
  13. Code, U.B. (1997), International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, CA, USA.
  14. Crisafulli, F.J. (1997), "Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete structures with masonry infills", Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
  15. Elgohary, H. (2013), "Empirical formula for the fundamental period of vibration of multi-story RC framed buildings", Proceeding of Vienna Congress on Recent Advances in Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamic, Vienna, Austria, August.
  16. ETABS, C. (2016), Integrated Building Design Software, Version 16.0. 3., Computers and Structures, Berkeley, CA, USA.
  17. Eurocode 8 (2005), Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
  18. Favvata, M.J., Naoum, M.C. and Karayannis, C.G. (2013), "Limit states of RC structures with first floor irregularities", Struct. Eng. Mech., 47(6), 791-818. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2013.47.6.791.
  19. Goel, R.K. and Chopra, A.K. (1997), "Period formulas for moment-resisting frame buildings", J. Struct. Eng., 123(11), 1454. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:11(1454).
  20. Hong, L.L. and Hwang, W.L. (2000), "Empirical formula for fundamental vibration periods of reinforced concrete buildings in Taiwan", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 29(3), 327-337. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(200003)29:3%3C327::AID-EQE907%3E3.0.CO;2-0.
  21. Karabini, M.A., Karabinis, A.J. and Karayannis, C.G. (2022), "Seismic characteristics of a Π-shaped 4-story RC structure with open ground floor", Earthq. Struct., 22(4), 345-353. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2022.22.4.345.
  22. Karayannis, C.G., Favvata, M.J. and Kakaletsis, D.J. (2011), "Seismic behaviour of infilled and pilotis RC frame structures with beam-column joint degradation effect", Eng. Struct., 33(10), 2821-2831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.06.006.
  23. Mainstone, R.J. (1974), "On the stiffness and strength of in-filled frames", Proc. Inst. Civil Eng., 49, 57.
  24. Ricci, P., Verderame, G.M. and Manfredi, G. (2011), "Analytical investigation of elastic period of infilled RC MRF buildings", Eng. Struct., 33(2), 308-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.10.009.
  25. Safety, I.S. (2003), Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 450), Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.
  26. SeismoStruct (2006), A Computer Program for Static and Dynamic Nonlinear Analysis of Framed Structures, Seismosoft Ltd., Pavia, Italy.
  27. Standard No. 2800 (2014), Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings, 4th Edition, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development of Iran, Tehran, Iran.
  28. Varadharajan, S., Sehgal, V.K. and Saini, B. (2014), "Inelastic seismic response of RC setback frames designed as per EC 8 and IS 456 provisions", IUP J. Struct. Eng., 7(3), 7.
  29. Wolf, JP. and Deeks, A.J. (2004), Foundation Vibration Analysis: A Strength of Materials Approach", Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands.