Evaluation of Nonlinear Dynamic Response of Rigid and Semi-Rigid Steel Frames under Far-Field Earthquake Records

Subject Areas : Biosafety

Fariborz Tooll Gulani ¹ , Ali Anvarsamarin ²

1 - rasht
2 - Department of Civil Engineering, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran

Received: 2019-08-05 Accepted : 2020-02-03 Published : 2021-06-01

Keywords: Incremental dynamic analysis, collapse fragility curve, Rigid and Semi-Rigid Connections, Far-Field earthquake Records,

Abstract :

The purpose of this research was to evaluate the nonlinear dynamic response of rigid and semi-rigid steel frames under Far-Fault Earthquake Records. Accordingly, the fragility curve of the moment frames with rigid and semi-rigid connections was determined. Considering the analytical knowledge of structures in the past, the analysis and design of steel frames based on the assumptions of rigid or joint connections. While laboratory studies show that most connections are semi-rigid and due to the importance of connections in the structures, it is very important to recognize and accurately study their behavior, especially during an earthquake, and their design must be under their real structural behavior. For this purpose, three two-dimensional steel moment frame structures with 6, 12, and 18 stories were used, which represent short, medium, and high structures. Considering the rigid and semi-rigid connections, their seismic performance was investigated using the nonlinear dynamic incremental analysis (IDA). Three cases of connections have been selected corresponding to 50, 60, and 70% rigidity. Finally, the collapse fragility curve parameters obtained and compared. According to the obtained results, decreasing the rigidity of the beam-to-column connections increases the dispersion of the collapse fragility curve. Besides, it was observed that considering the semi-rigid connections leads to a reduction of the median of the collapse fragility curve. The result shows that the mentioned difference cannot be neglected.

References:

1. Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C.A. "Incremental dynamic analysis", Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31 (3), 491-514. (2002).


2. Stoica, Maria, Ricardo A. Medina, and Richard H. McCuen. "Improved probabilistic quantification of drift demands for seismic evaluation." Structural Safety 29, no. 2, 132-145. (2007).


3. Anvarsamarin, Ali, Fayaz Rahimzadeh Rofooei, and Masoud Nekooei. "Soil-structure interaction effect on fragility curve of 3D models of concrete moment-resisting buildings." Shock and Vibration 2018 (2018).


4. Anvarsamarin, Ali, Fayaz Rahimzadeh Rofooei, and Masoud Nekooei. "Torsion Effect on the RC Structures using Fragility Curves Considering with Soil-Structure Interaction." Journal of Rehabilitation in Civil Engineering 8, no. 1 (2020): 1-21.


5. Zareian, Farzin, and Helmut Krawinkler. "Assessment of probability of collapse and design for collapse safety." Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 36, no. 13 (2007): 1901-1914.


6. Miller, Duane K. "Lessons learned from the Northridge earthquake." Engineering Structures 20, no. 4-6 (1998): 249-260


7. DiSarno, Luigi, and Amr S. Elnashai. "Seismic retrofitting of steel and composite building structures." Mid-America Earthquake Center CD Release 02-01 (2002).


8. Sadeghi Shourmasti, Sh., Nasiri, J. Review of semi-rigid connections in the design of structural steel structures. The 2nd Electronic Conference on Advanced Research in Science and Technology. Islamic Azad University of Kerman. (2015).


9. Nair, Rajasekharan S., P. C. Birkomoe, and William H. Munse. "High strength bolts subject to tension and prying." Journal of the Structural Division 100, no. st2 (1974).


10. Swanson, James A., and Roberto T. Leon. "Stiffness modeling of bolted T-stub connection components." Journal of structural engineering 127, no. 5 (2001): 498-505.


11. Swanson, James A., and Roberto T. Leon. "Bolted steel connections: tests on T-stub components." Journal of Structural Engineering 126, no. 1 (2000): 50-56.


12. Sadasivan, Sridhar. "Mathematical Modeling of Behavior of T-Stub Connections." PhD diss., University of Cincinnati, 2004.


13. ASCE 7-10. (2010). “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA.


14. Eghbali, M., Ghodrati Amiri, Gh.R., Yaghmaei Sabegh, S. Comparison of approximate and precise Methods of Incremental Dynamic Analysis in Seismic Evaluation of Steel Flexible Frames. Eighth Year - No. 11 - Spring and Summer. Structural and Steel Scientific and Research Journal. (2012).


15. ETABS, Structural Analysis Program (2013). Computers and Structures Inc. Berkeley, California, U.S.A.


16. Seismo-Struct Structural Analysis Program (2016). The Company Seismo Soft


17. Chopra, Anil K. Dynamics of structures theory and. 1995.


18. Vamvatsikos, Dimitrios, and C. Allin Cornell. "Seismic performance, capacity and reliability of structures as seen through incremental dynamic analysis." PhD diss., Stanford university, 2002.


19. Porter, Keith A., James L. Beck, and Rustem Shaikhutdinov. "Simplified estimation of economic seismic risk for buildings." Earthquake Spectra 20, no. 4 (2004): 1239-1263.


20. Ibarra, L. F., and H. Krawinkler. "Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations. PEER Report 2005/06." University of California at Berkeley, California, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (2005).