Evaluation of Displacement Amplification Factor of Regular and Irregular Steel Moment Frames Using FEMA P695 Methodology

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Graduate of Structural Engineering, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran

Abstract

In recent decades, several destructive earthquakes resulted in extensive structural and non-structural damage in structures, which was produced by lateral displacements. Therefore, it reveals the necessity for the accurate estimation of the lateral displacement of structures in the design procedure.
Present seismic codes using structural overstrength and the ability of energy dissipation capacity of the structures allow a structure to be designed for reduced seismic design forces with force reduction factor. As a result of this, the response of the structure lies beyond the elastic region in the event of strong ground motions; thus, simple linear analyses procedures fail to predict the structure deformations accurately. On the other hand, due to complexity and time consuming nonlinear dynamic analysis, this type of analysis has not been acknowledged as an applicable method for structural engineers. Efforts in the direction of finding a procedure to estimate the maximum lateral inelastic displacement began years ago.
According to present seismic design provisions, displacement amplification factor (Cd) is being applied to elastic lateral displacements in order to assess inelastic displacements due to ground motions. Although, the factor of Cd in the codes are not in accordance with the actual behavior of the structure, the empirical does, based on the structural performance observed in the past earthquakes and should be corrected according to the effect of height and number of stories. In this paper, the effect of Cd on seismic performance of steel special moment frames is evaluated. In this regard, six types of buildings are designed with different values of Cd (i.e., 4, 5, 5.5, 6, 7, and 8); and, in order to investigate low to high-rise buildings, 5 heights (i.e., 5-, 10-, 15-, 20- and 25-stories) are considered in two regular and irregular states. Irregularity is considered to be a mass irregularity in the first floor, so that the mass of the first floor is 50% higher than the mass of the adjacent floor. The numerical finite element models are developed in OpenSEES software. Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) and nonlinear static analysis are performed to quantify structures’ seismic performance; Nonlinear static analyzes are performed to determine overstrength and ductility factors of buildings. Also, the effect of earthquakes on buildings is investigated using incremental dynamic analysis that is accomplished with 22 far-field earthquake record pairs proposed in FEMA P695. Eventually, the effect of different values of Cd on seismic performance of the buildings are quantified and investigated using FEMA P695 methodology and fragility curves in terms of the adjusted collapse margin ratio (CMR) and the probability of collapse (Pf).
The results demonstrate that the probability of collapse (Pf) of short and medium-rise buildings with Cd equal to 5.5 is higher than 10%, which is the targeted value of Pf according to design codes; therefore, considering Cd equal to 5.5 in the design of these buildings does not provide real displacement and leads to underestimated design of buildings. In irregular buildings, although the Pf values increased compared to regular buildings, a similar trend was observed in general. In short, the amount of Cd that leads to an acceptable performance of collapse in the structures is equal to 8, 8, 7, 6 and 5.5 in regular 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 story buildings, respectively; moreover, similarly in 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 story buildings with mass irregularity are equal to 7, 7, 6, 5.5 and 5.5, respectively. Based on these values, relations are proposed to correct the displacement amplification factor in regular and mass irregular steel special moment frames.
Also, comparison of Pf and weight of structures designed with ASCE 7-10 and ASCE 7-16 regulations revealed that design of structures according to ASCE 7-10 criteria with modified values of Cd that is presented in this paper will be economical in addition to achieve the intended collapse performance.
 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. ASCE (2010) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-10. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston.
  2. Samimifar, M., Oskouei, A.V., and Rofooei, F.R. (2015) Deflection amplification factor for estimating seismic lateral deformations of RC frames. Eng. Eng. Vib., 14 (2), 373-384.
  3. Özkılıç, Y.O., Bozkurt, M.B., and Topkaya, C. (2018) Evaluation of seismic response factors for BRBFs using FEMA P695 methodology. Constr. Steel Res., 151, 41-57.
  4. Formisano, A., Landolfo, R., and Mazzolani, F.M. (2015) Robustness assessment approaches for steel framed structures under catastrophic events. Struct., 147, 216-228.
  5. Beatrice, F., Formisano, A., Generoso, V., and Mazzolani, F.M. (2018) Numerical study on Moment Resisting Frames under monotonic and cyclic loads. Key Eng. Mater., 763, 625-632.
  6. Louzai, A. and Abed, A. (2015) Evaluation of the seismic behavior factor of reinforced concrete frame structures based on comparative analysis between non-linear static pushover and incremental dynamic analyses. Earthq. Eng., 13(6), 1773-1793.
  7. Kusyılmaz, A. and Topkaya, C. (2014) Displace-ment amplification factors for steel eccentrically braced frames. Eng. Struct. Dynam., 44(6), 167-184.
  8. Miranda, E. (2000) Inelastic displacement ratios for structures on firm sites. Struct. Eng., 126, 1150-1159.
  9. Ruiz-García, J. and Miranda, E. (2006) Inelastic displacement ratios for evaluation of structures built on soft soil sites. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 35(6) 679-694.
  10. Miranda, E. and Ruiz-garca, J. (2002) Evaluation of approximate methods to estimate maximum inelastic displacement demands. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 560 (January 2001), 539-560.
  11. Chopra, A. and Chintanapakdee, C. (2004) Inelastic deformation ratios for design and evaluation of structures: Single-degree-of-freedom bilinear systems. Struct. Eng., 130(9), 1309-1319.
  12. Chikh, B., Laouami, N., Mebarki, A., Leblouba, M., Mehani, Y., Kibboua, A., Hadid, M., and Benouar, D. (2017) Seismic structural demands and inelastic deformation ratios: Sensitivity analysis and simplified models. Struct., 13(1), 59-66.
  13. Mechaala, A., Benazouz, C., Zedira, H.,  Mehani, Y. and Guezouli, S. (2019) Higher modes contribution for estimating the inelastic deformation ratios and seismic demands of structures. Mech. Sci. Technol., 33(2), 591-601.
  14. Uang, C. (1991) Establishing R (or Rw) and Cd Factors for Building Seismic Provisions. Struct. Eng., 117(1), 19-28.
  15. Uang, C. and Maarouf, A. (1995) Deflection amplification factor for seismic design provisions. Struct. Eng., 120(8), 2423-2436.
  16. Kusyılmaz, A. and Topkaya, C. (2014) Displace-ment amplification factors for steel eccentrically braced frames. Eng. Struct. Dynam., 44(6), 167-184.
  17. Kusyılmaz, A. and Topkaya, C. (2016) Evaluation of seismic response factors for EBFs using FEMA P695 methodology. Spectra, 32(1), 303-321.
  18. Mahmoudi, M. and Jalili Sadr Abad, M. (2021) Assessment on the deflection amplification factor of steel buckling-restrained bracing frames. Struct. Eng., 25(2), 231-246.
  19. AISC (2010) Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC 341-10. American Institute for Steel Construction, Chicago.
  20. Zareian, F., Lignos, D., and Krawinkler, H. (2010) Evaluation of Seismic Collapse Performance of Steel Special Moment Resisting Frames Using FEMA P695 (ATC-63) Methodology. Structural Congress.
  21. Ibarra, L.F. and Krawinkler, H. (2005) Global Collapse of Frame Structures under Seismic Excitations. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineer-ing Center Technical Report 152. Stanford Univ., Berkeley.
  22. Lignos, D. and Krawinkler, H. (2011) Deter-ioration modeling of steel components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading. Struct. Eng., 137(11), 1291-1302.
  23. Lignos, D. (2008) Sidesway Collapse of Deteriorating Structural Systems. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Technical Report 177. Stanford University, Berkeley.
  24. FEMA (2009) Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, Report FEMA P695. Federal Emergency Management Agancy, Washington.
  25. Elkady, A. (2016) Collapse Risk Assesssment of Steel Moment Resisting Frames Designed with Deep Wide-Flange Columns in Seismic Regions. McGill University, Doctoral Thesis, 1-481.
  26. Asghari, A. and Saharkhizan, S. (2019) Seismic design and performance evaluation of steel frames with knee-element connections. Constr. Steel Res., 154, 161-176.
  27. Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, A. (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(3), 491-514.
  28. Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, A. (2005) Seismic Performance, Capacity and Reliability of Struct-ures as Seen Through Incremental Dynamic Analysis. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Technical Report 151. Stanford University, Berkeley.
  29. Baker, J.W. (2007) Measuring bias in structural response caused by ground motion scaling. Pacific Conf. Earthq. Eng.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 23 November 2021
  • Revise Date: 31 December 2021
  • Accept Date: 12 February 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics