Seismic performance of moment resisting steel frame subjected to earthquake excitations

Abstract

This study presents static and dynamic assessments on the steel structures. Pushover analysis (POA) and incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) were run on moment resisting steel frames. The IDA study involves successive scaling and application of each accelerogram followed by assessment of the maximum response. Steel frames are subjected to nonlinear inelastic time history analysis for 14 different scaled ground motions, 7 near field and 7 far field. The results obtained from POA on the 3, 6 and 9 storey steel frames show consistent results for both uniform and triangular lateral loading. Uniform loading shows that the steel frames exhibits higher base shear than the triangular loading. The IDA results show that the far field ground motions has caused all steel frame design within the research to collapse while near field ground motion only caused some steel frames to collapse. The POA can be used to estimate the performance-based-seismic-design (PBSD) limit states of the steel frames with consistency while the IDA seems to be quite inconsistent. It is concluded that the POA can be consistently used to estimate the limit states of steel frames while limit state estimations from IDA requires carefully selected ground motions with considerations of important parameters.

Keywords

incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) / pushover analysis / performance-based seismic design

References

[1] Hussein A F, Ghazali M Z. The Role of Steel Technology Centre in the Advancement of Steel Construction in Malaysia. In: Chan S L, Teng J G, eds. Advances in Steel Structures ICASS '96: 2-Volume Set. Elsevier Science, 1996, 1230

[2] Balendra T, Li Z. Seismic Hazard of Singapore and Malaysia. EJSE Special Issue: Earthquake Engineering in the low and moderate seismic regions of Southeast Asia and Austrialia, 2008, 57-63

[3] Rahman A, Ahmed A A M, Mamun M R. Drift Analysis due to earthquake load on tall structures. Journal of Civil Engineering and Construction Technology, 2012, 4: 154-158

[4] FIB. Displacement-based Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings: State-of-art Report. International Federation for Structural Concrete (FIB), 2003, 25: 192

[5] Krawinkler H. Pushover analysis: Why, how, when, and when not to use it. In: Proceedings of the 65th Annual Structural Engineers Association of California Convention. Maui, Hawaii, 1996

[6] FEMA-273. NEHRP Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings.Washington DC: Building Seismic Safety Council, 1997

[7] Naeim F, Bhatia H, Lobo R M. Performance Based Seismic Engineering, in Seismic Design Handbook. 2001, 759-765

[8] FEMA-356. Prestandard and commentry for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2000

[9] BSI. Eurocode 3 (EC3): Design of Steel Structures in Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. London, 2005

[10] BSI. Eurocode 8 (EC8): Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures, in Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Building. London, 2004

[11] Elghazouli A Y, Castro J M. Design of Steel Structures, in Seismic Design of Buildings to Eurocode 8. Elghazouli AY, ed. Spon Press, 2009

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by Universiti Sains Malaysia under Short Term Grant (60312025).

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2014 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg