چگونگی وابستگی ظرفیت فروریزی سازه قاب خمشی بتنی به حداکثر بزرگای زلزله در منطقه

نوع مقاله : Articles

نویسندگان

1 گروه مهندسی عمران، مؤسسه آموزش عالی علاءالدوله سمنانی گرمسار، سمنان، ایران

2 گروه مهندسی عمران، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران، ایران

3 دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

یکی از مواردی که ایمنی سازه قاب خمشی بتنی را مخدوش می‎نماید، رخداد لرزه‎ای نادر در طبیعت است. زلزله بم در سال 2003 میلادی نمونه‎ای از این‌گونه رخدادها بوده که منجر به وارد شدن خسارات زیاد به سازه‎های نوساز گردید. در این مقاله ظرفیت فروریزی سازه‎ها، با استناد به مجموعه شتاب‌نگاشت‌های استاندارد آیین‌نامه FEMA P695 و وابستگی سازه به بزرگ‌ترین زلزله منطقه‌ای(MCE)، مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفته است. برای تعیین ظرفیت فروریزی سازه، لزوم وجود یک روش جامع و کامل که توانایی بیان رفتار لرزه‎ای سازه‎ها را داشته باشد به چشم می‎خورد. در این مقاله از تحلیل بار افزاینده دینامیکی غیرخطی (IDA) به‌منظور بیان رفتار لرزه‎ای سازه‎ها استفاده شده است. هدف از این مقاله، بررسی ایمنی سازه‎ها، تحت اثر رخدادهای نادر طبیعت با استفاده از روش بار افزاینده دینامیکی غیرخطی می‎باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Dependency of Collapse Capacity of RC-MRF to Maximum Considered Earthquake

نویسندگان [English]

  • Pouya Amirchoupani 1
  • Ahmad Niknam 2
  • Afshin Hosseini 3
1 Civil Engineering Department, Alaodolleh Semnani University, Semnan, Iran
2 Department of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
3 Department of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

One of the situations that distorts the safetyof concrete moment frame structures is the rare seismic events. Bam earthquake in 2003 was one of the rare seismic events that caused damages to many newly built structures. In this paper, the capacity of structures was evaluated according to the standardrecord sets of FEMA P695 and maximum considered earthquake (MCE). A comprehensive method should be used to express the seismic behavior of structures for assessing the collapse capacity. Incremental dynamic analyses proposed by Vamvatsikos and Cornell in 2002. This method is used for assessing the collapse capacity of structures in this study. The proposed methodology is used for collapse assessing of an individual as well as a group of buildings with due attention to rare seismic events and incremental dynamic analyses method. Illustrative results show that, if structures provide minimum acceptable requirements of FEMA P695, they would have been secured against rare seismic events.Development of nonlinear models for collapse stimulation is the first step of collapse assessing methodology. All of the structures have been designed according to ASCE 7-05 code, and for expressing of nonlinear behavior of materials, ManderandMenegotto-Pintomodelhasbeen considered. Selection of ground motion record sets forcollapse assessment of building structures is very important. Both far-field and near-fieldrecords have been considered in FEMA P695, but in this paper, the far-field records were used. Three analyses have been considered in assessing the collapse capacity. Eigenvalue analyses, incremental dynamic analyses and static pushover analyses are required for assessing the collapse capacity. Incremental dynamic analyses is one the suitable methods for expressing of seismic behavior of structures. The basic idea of this analysis was described by Bertero in 1997. In 2002, this method was accompanied with big progress by Vamvatsikos and Cornell. Illustrative results show where the incremental dynamic analyses curve slope is equal to 20% of the elastic while the point also belongs to softening branch defined as collapse point. Additionally, another candidatepoint is displacement ratio of 10%. Illustrative results show that where the incremental dynamic analyses curve lining to infinity is being defined as collapse point. The incremental dynamic analyses curves show record to record variability, thus it is essential to summarize such data. The fragility fitting approach has been used widelyfordefining the median collapse acceleration. Adjusted collapse margin ratio is the most important parameter for assessing the collapse capacity of structures. According to FEMA P695, the acceptable value of the adjusted collapse margin ratio for each individual model within a performance group should exceed ACMR (20%). Additionally, the average value of adjusted collapse margin ratio for each performance group should exceed ACMR (10%)Finally, collapse capacity of 5 and 10 story concrete moment frame structures are defined. Bothstructures have acceptable adjusted collapse margin ratio and both of them have acceptable safety according to rare seismic events. Structures thatcould not satisfy the FEMA’s conditions must increase their lateral strength and re-evaluate.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Incremental Dynamic Analyses
  • Collapse Capacity
  • Maximum Considered Earthquake
  • Safety
  • Concrete Structure
  1. Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C. (2002) Seismic Performance, Capacity and Reliability of Structures as Seen Through Incremental Dynamic Analysis. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Rep. No. 151.
  2. Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C.A. (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 31(3), 491-514.
  3. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2009) Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors. FEMA P695, Washington, DC.
  4. Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J., and Park, R. (1988) Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, 114(8), 1804-1826.
  5. Nezhati, S., Masoumi, H., and Khaloo, A. (2014) Evaluation of Seismic Performance of Structures with Seismostruct Software. Motefakeran, Tehran.
  6. Menegotto, M. (1973) Method of analysis for cyclically loaded RC plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under combined normal force and bending. Proc. of IABSE Symposium on Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well-Defined Repeated Loads. 15-22.
  7. Bertero, V. and Bresler, B. (1977) Failure criteria (limit states). Proceedings of the World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
  8. Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C.A. (2004) Applied incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Spectra, 20(2), 523-553.
  9. Baker, J.W. (2015) Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthquake Spectra, 31(1), 579-599.
  10. American Society of Civil Engineers (1994) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Vol. 7. American Society of Civil Engineers.
  11. Baker, J.W. and Allin Cornell, C. (2006) Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 35(9), 1077-1095.
  12. Haselton, C.B., Baker, J.W., Liel, A.B. and Deierlein, G.G. (2009) Accounting for ground-motion spectral shape characteristics in structural collapse assessment through an adjustment for epsilon. Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(3), 332-344.
  13. Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal, T.E. (1997) Equations for estimating horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from western North American earthquakes: a summary of recent work. Seismological Research Letters, 68(1), 128-153.
  14. Ibarra, L.F. and Krawinkler, H. (2005) Global Collapse of Frame Structures Under Seismic Excitations. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.