Analytical comparison between seismic performance of middle-rise bundled tube and 3d moment frame structures

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 MSc, Faculty of Engineering, Kharazmi University, Tehran.

2 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Kharazmi University, Tehran.

3 Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Kharazmi University, Tehran.

Abstract

In this study, the performance of resistant skeleton of mid-rise moment frames under scaled near-field earthquake records have been evaluated by using both, incremental dynamic and nonlinear dynamic time history analyses. Also, a brief explanation of this concept through the perspective of the formation of nonlinear hinges has been studied using modal pushover analysis. Three-dimensional propagation of seismic waves in resistant skeleton of buildings create a set of dynamic lateral forces with different intensities in the height of structure. Near-field strong ground motions are able to magnify the intensity of the mentioned forces. The studied structural models are comprising of bundled tube frame and full 3d moment frame resistant skeletons. The evaluated response parameters are the maximum interstory drift, maximum acceleration of stories, the interstory drift time history and configuration of the formed nonlinear hinges. Moreover, the IDA curves corresponding to maximum interstory drift have been drown subjected to a number of near-field ground motions. The performance of studied structures was evaluated and compared.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

[1] Asgarian, B., Sadrinezhad, A. & Alanjari, A. (2010), “Seismic performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frames through incremental dynamic analysis”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 66, 178-190.
[2] Bahramirad, A., Tehranizadeh, M. & Moshref, A. (2015), “Equating incremental dynamic analysis with static nonlinear analysis at near-field excitation”, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 14(3), 465-476.
[3] Shuang, L. & Xie, L. (2007), “Progress and trend on near-field problems in civil engineering”, Acta Seismologica Sinica, 20, 105-11. 
[4] Azhdarifar, M., Meshkat-Dini, A. & Sarvghad Moghadam, A. (2015), “Assessment of Seismic response of Mid-Rise Steel Buildings with Structural Configuration of Framed Tube Skeletons”, 7th International Conference on Seismology and Earthquake Engineering (SEE7), Tehran, Iran.
[5] Gaur, H. & Goliya, R.K. (2015), “Mitigating shear lag in tall building”, International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering, 7, 269-279.
[6] Movahed, H., Meshkat-Dini, A. & Tehranizadeh, M. (2014), “Seismic evaluation of steel special moment resisting frames affected by pulse type ground motions”, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (BHRC), 15, 575-585.
[7] Narayan, S., Shrimali, M.K., Bharti, S.D. & Datta, T.K. (2018), “Collapse of damaged steel building frames because of earthquakes”, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities (ASCE), 32(1). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001125
[8] Han, S.W., Moon, K.H. & Ha, S.J. (2015), “Seismic performance of high rise intermediate steel moment frames according to rotation capacity of moment connections”, International Journal of High Rise Buildings, 4(1), 45-55.
[9] Kalkan, E. & Kunath, S. (2006), “Effects of fling step and forward directivity on seismic response of buildings”, Earthquake Spectra, 22(2), 367-390.
[10] Krishnan, S. (2007), “Case studies of damage to 19‐storey irregular steel moment‐frame buildings under near‐source ground motion”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 36(7), 861-885.
[11] Sehhati, R., Rodriguez-Marek, A., ElGawady, M. & Cofer W.F. (2011), “Effects of near-fault ground motions and equivalent pulses on multi-story structures”, Engineering Structures, 33, 767-779.
[12] Ghahari, F. & Khaloo, R. (2013), “Considering rupture directivity effects, which structures should be named long-period buildings?”, The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 22, 165–178.
[13] Tajmir Riahi, H., Amouzegar, H. & Ale-Saheb Fosoul, S. (2015), “Comparative study of seismic structural response to real and spectrum matched ground motions”, Scientia Iranica, 22, 92-106.
[14] PEER Ground Motion Database, http://peer.berkeley.edu/
[15] National Building Regulations. (2013), “Part 6: Applied loads on buildings”, Ministry of Roads and Urban Development, Deputy for housing and construction, Tehran, Iran.
[16] Shirvani Harandi, V. (2017), The effect of behavior coefficient on seismic demand of 3D moment frame under strong ground motion. Thesis of Master. Kharazmi University.
[17] National Building Regulations. (2013), “Part 10: Design and Construction of Steel Buildings”, Ministry of Roads and Urban Development, Deputy for housing and construction, Tehran, Iran
[18] Federal Energy Management Agency (FEMA). (1998), “Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings: FEMA 356”, Createspace Independent Publication
[19] FEMA 440. (2005), “Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures”, Applied Technology Council (ATC-55 Project).
[20] SAP 2000, Structural Analysis Program, Computer and Structures; Berkeley.
[21] Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings (Standard no. 2800). (2014). 4th Edition, Building & Housing Research Center, Tehran, Iran.
[22] Poursha, M. & Samarin, E.T. (2015), “The modified and extended upper-bound (UB) pushover method for the multi-mode pushover analysis of unsymmetric-plan tall buildings”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 71, 114-127.
[23] Eghbali, M., Ghodrati Amiri, Gh. & Yaghmaei Sabegh, S. (2012). “Comparison approximate and accurate methods of evaluating seismic increasingly dynamic analysis of steel moment frames”, Journal of Structure & Steel, 8(11), 63-82.
[24] Vamvatsicos, D. & Cornell, CA. (2004), “Applied incremental dynamic analysis”, Earthquake Spectra, 20(2), 523-553.
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics