Evaluation of Seismic Response of Tall Buildings comprised of Braced Tube Skeleton with Contiguous Braced Panels Configuration Subjected to Nearfield Records

Document Type : Articles

Authors

1 Kharazmi University, Faculty of Engineering, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

3 Structural Engineering Research Center, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The braced tube structure is one of the most efficient lateral load resistant skeletal systems under seismic loads. This high-rise mega frame has desirable aspects in terms of seismic response. Also, this system increases the resistance potential of high-rise structures in comparison with three-dimensional steel rigid frames. The present study denotes the seismic response properties of four mega braced tube structural systems of 20-story with different bracing configurations, which are the same in plan and loading arrangements, subjected to strong near-field records. The two studied structures have skeletal configuration of centralized braced panels. Moreover, the two other studied models were designed based on mega braced tube system considered as the resistant structure. In order to assess dynamic response parameters of the studied structures, several nonlinear time history analyses were performed. The selected earthquake records contain a variety of wave-like characteristics such as long period pulses and high amplitude spikes in the ground velocity and acceleration time histories. The analytical evaluation of seismic response parameters indicates the desirable performance of mega braced tube structural systems under powerful near-fault records.
The aforementioned seismic performances were investigated in terms of maximum lateral displacement, inter-story drift as well as absolute acceleration, relative velocity of floors and total base shear along with the integrated formations of skeletal nonlinear hinges. It was obtained that the concentrated configuration of a limited number of aligned braced panels in high-rise framed skeleton is not relatively suitable. Also, dynamic response parameters of the 20-story models with the configuration of centralized braced panels are influenced more while being subjected to near-field ground motions in comparison to the mega braced tube systems. The application of centralized braced panels would lead to the more intensive variation in seismic response parameters. It should be noted that the application of single elements as well as concentric aligned braced panels cannot be effective in controlling the maximum lateral displacement and drift demands. The structural vulnerability assessment indicated that mega braced tube structures have better seismic performance than the other type of resistant skeletons under influencing of large coherent velocity pulses which displayed in the time history of strong earthquake records.

Keywords

References

  1. Kalkan, E.; Kunnath, S.K.; (2006) Effects of fling step and forward directivity on seismic response of buildings, Earthquake Spectra, 22(2), 367-390.
  2. Liu, T.; Luan, Y.; Zhong, W.; (2012) A numerical approach for modeling near-fault ground motion and its application in the 1994 Northridge earthquake, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 34(1), 52–61.
  3. Hoseini Vaez, S.R.; Sharbatdar, M.K.; Ghodrati Amiri, G.; Naderpour, H.; Kheyroddin, A.; (2013) Dominant pulse simulation of near fault ground motions, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 12, 267-278.
  4. Yaghmaei-Sabegh, S.; (2013) Wavelet-based analysis for pulse period of earthquake ground motions, International Journal of Engineering-Transactions A: Basics, 26 (10), 1135-1144.
  5. Trifunac, M.D.; Todorovska, M.; (2013) A note on energy of strong ground motion during Northridge, California, earthquake of January17, 1994, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 47, 175-184.
  6. Trifunac, M.D.; Todorovska, M.; (2013) A note on the power of strong ground motion during Northridge, California, earthquake of January17, 1994, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 52, 13-26.
  7. Mukhopadhyay, S.; Gupta, V.K.; (2013) Directivity pulses in near-fault ground motions-II: estimation, extraction and modeling. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 50, 38-52.
  8. Somervill, P.G.; Smith, N.F.; Graves, R.W.; Abrahamson, N.A.; (1997) Modification of empirical ground motion attenuation to include amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity. Seismological Research, 68, 199-222.
  9. Somerville, P.G.; (2003) Magnitude scaling of the near fault rupture directivity pulse, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 137(1), 201-212.
  10. Richards, P.; Uang, C.M.; (2006) Testing protocol for short links in eccentrically braced frames, Journal of Structural Engineering, 132,1183-1191.
  11. Dubina, D.; Stratan, A.; and Dinu, F.; (2008) Dual high‐strength steel eccentrically braced frames with removable links, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 37, 1703-1720.
  12. Bosco, M.; Ghersi, A.; Marino, E.M.; Rossi, P.P.; (2013) Prediction of the seismic response of steel frames with concentric diagonal bracings, The Open Construction and Building Technology Journal, 7, 118-128.
  13. Jay, S.; Rou, W.; Bulent, A.; Bilge, D.; Eren, U.; (2014) Seismic demand on brace-intersected beams in two-story X-braced frames, Engineering Structures, 76, 295–312.
  14. Yeom, H.J.; Yoo, J.H.; (2018) Analytical investigation on seismic behavior of inverted v-braced frames, International Journal of Steel Structures,18(1), 189-198.
  15. Fan, H.; Li, Q.S.; Tuan, A.Y.; Xu, L.; (2009) Seismic analysis of the world's tallest building, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 65, 1206-1215.
  16. Lu, X.; Lu, X.; Guan, H.; Zhang, W.; Ye, L.; (2013) Earthquake-induced collapse simulation of a super-tall mega-braced frame-core tube building, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 82, 59-71.
  17. Hemmati, A.; Kheyroddin, A.; (2013) Behavior of large scale bracing system in tall building subjected to earthquake load. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 19, 206-216.
  18. Mazinani, I.; Jumaat, M.Z.; Ismail, Z.; Chao, O.Z.; (2014) Comparison of shear lag in structural steel building with framed tube and braced tube, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 49(3), 297-309.
  19. Vafaei, D.; Eskandari, R.; (2016) Seismic performance of steel mega braced frames equipped with shape-memory alloy braces under near-fault earthquakes, The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 25, 3-21.
  20. Bastami, M.; Hajihasani, M.; (2013) Input waves for seismic design of power substation equipment for near and far Iranian earthquake records, International Journal of Civil Engineering, 12, 55-72.
  21. Zhai, C.; Chang, Z.; Li, S.; Chen, Z.Q.; Xie, L.; (2013) Quantitative identification of near-fault pulse-like ground motions based on energy, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (BSSA), 103(5), 2591-2603.
  22. Khaloo, A.R.; Khosravi, H.; Hamidi Jamnani H.; (2015) Nonlinear interstory drift contours for idealized forward directivity pulses using “modified fish-bone” models, Advances in Structural Engineering (SAGE Jornals), 18(5), 603-627.
  23. Hall, J.F.; Heaton, T.H.; Halling, M.W.; Wald, D.J.; (1995) Near-source ground motion and its effects on flexible buildings, Earthquake Spectra (EERI), 11, 569-605.
  24. Azhdarifar, M, Meshkat-Dini, A. and Moghadam, A.S. (2015) Assessment of Seismic response of Mid-Rise Steel Buildings with Structural Configuration of Framed Tube Skeletons. Seventh International Conference on Seismology and Earthquake Engineering (SEE7), Tehran, Iran.
  25. Durucan, C.; Durucan, A.R. (2016) Ap/Vp specific inelastic displacement ratio for the seismic response estimation of SDOF structures subjected to sequential near fault pulse type ground motion records. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (Elsevier), 89, 163-170.
  26. Bradley, B.A.; Pettinga, D.; Baker, J.W.; Fraser, J.; (2017) Guidance on the utilization of earthquake-induced ground motion simulations in engineering practice, Earthquake Spectra (EERI), 33(3), https://doi.org/10.1193/120216EQS219EP
  27. Puglia, R.; Russo, E.; Luzi, L.; D’Amico, M.; Felicetta, C.; Pacor, F.; Lanzano, G.; (2018) Strong-motion processing service: a tool to access and analyse earthquakes strong-motion waveforms, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (Springer), 16(7), 2641-2651, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0299-z
  28. Mollaioli, F.; Decanini, L.D.; (2006) Characterization of the dynamic response of structures to damaging pulse -type near fault ground motion, International Journal of Theoretical Applied Mechanics, 41, 23-46.
  29. Malhotra, P.K.; (1999) Response of buildings to near-field pulse-like ground motions, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 28, 1309-1326.
  30. 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(3), 767–779.
  31. Mukhopadhyay, S.; Gupta, V.K.; (2013) Directivity pulses in near-fault ground motions-I: Identification, extraction and modeling, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 50, 1-15.
  32. Burks, L.S.; Baker, J.W.; (2016) A predictive model for fling-step in near-fault ground motions based on recordings and simulations, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 80, 119-126.
  33. Nazari, S.; Keyvani, J.; Meshkat-Dini, A.; Azhdarifar, M.; (2017) Study on the seismic response of mid-rise bundled tube resistant systems under simulated closed-form near-field records, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (BHRC), 18, 1-8.
  34. Standard No. 2800, Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings (4th Edition), Tehran, Iran, 2014.
  35. The Iranian National Building Code (Design Loads for Buildings - Division 6), Tehran, Iran, 2014.
  36. The Iranian National Building Code (Steel Structures - Division 10), Tehran, Iran, 2014.
  37. Barati, F.; (2015) Study on the effect of physical characteristics of near field earthquake records on response parameters of braced tube structured systems, M.Sc. Thesis, Kharazmi University (In Persian).
  38. FEMA 356 (2000). Pre-Standard and Commentary for the seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Washington D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency, USA.
  39. FEMA P-695. (2009). Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency, USA.
  40. PERFORM3D, Nonlinear Analysis and Performance Assessment for 3D-Structures (CSI), Berkeley, California, 2007.
  41. SAP2000, Integrated Software for Structural Analysis and Design (CSI), Berkeley, California, 2010.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 10 September 2018
  • Revise Date: 19 March 2021
  • Accept Date: 26 December 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics