Comparative study and performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frames design with: Force-based design and performance-based plastic design. (September 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Biradar, Bapugouda B.; Shirkol, A I; Bush, Rc
• Is Part Of: Structures. Volume 43(2022)
• Page Start: 696
• Page End: 709
• Publication Date: 2022-09
• Subjects: Cs Seismic response coefficient -- Cv Seismic coefficient -- Cvx Vertical distribution factor -- c Viscous damping coefficient -- Fa, Fv, S Site coefficient -- Fi Lateral force at level i -- Fiu Lateral force at level i at ultimate response -- Fn Lateral force at the top level n of the structure -- Fnu Lateral force at the top level n at ultimate response -- Fx Lateral force at level x -- fy Nominal yield stress -- g Acceleration due to gravity -- hi, hj Height of floor level i (or level j) of the structure above the ground -- hn Total height of the structure (IBC-2006) -- hsx Storey height below level x -- I Occupancy factor -- M Total mass of the system -- Mp Plastic moment -- Qi Design lateral force at ith floor -- R Response modification factor -- Rµ Ductility reduction factor -- Sa Spectral response acceleration coefficient -- SDS Design spectral response acceleration in the short period range -- SD1 Design spectral response acceleration at a period of 1 s -- SMS Maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration for short periods -- SM1 Maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration at 1 s -- Ss Mapped maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration at short periods -- Sv Pseudo-velocity -- S1 Mapped maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration -- T Fundamental period of the structure -- V, Vby Seismic design base shear -- Vp Plastic shear strength -- Vi Static storey shear at level i -- W Total seismic weight of the structure -- wi, wj Weight of the structure at level i (or level j) -- wn Weight of the structure at the top level n -- Zp Plastic section modulus -- α Design base shear parameter, Mass-proportional damping coefficient -- β Damping ratio, Stiffness-proportional damping coefficient -- βi Shear proportioning factor -- γ Modification factor for the energy balance equation -- µ Rotational ductility demand -- µs Structural ductility factor -- µt Target ductility ratio -- θp Plastic rotation, inelastic drift -- θp max, Maximum plastic rotation at plastic hinge -- θu Target drift -- θy Yield rotation, Yield drift -- Ωo Structural overstrength factor -- ω, ωn Natural circular frequency of the system; Steel Moment Resisting Frame -- Performance-Based Plastic Design -- Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis -- Nonlinear Response History Analysis -- Incremental Dynamic Analysis; Structural engineering -- Periodicals; 624.1
• DOI: 10.1016/j.istruc.2022.07.001
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2352-0124

Abstract

Abstract: Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA), Nonlinear Response History Analysis (NLRHA) and Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis (NSPA) has been carried out to evaluate seismic performance of Steel Moment Resisting Frames (SMRF). SMRF's are used as the lateral resisting systems which consist of columns and beams joined by welding or using high strength bolts or combination of both. The resistance offered to the lateral forces is due to rigid frame action which develops bending moment and shear force in the frame members and joints. The 9-storey SMRF is been evaluated for two frames designed by Force Based Design (FBD) method and Performance Based Plastic Design (PBPD) method. The FBD frame is designed by using codal provision of ASCE 7 (American Based Seismic Code) and AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction) whereas PBPD frame is designed as per proposed work of Lee and Goel (2001) in which energy balance equation and pre-selected yield mechanism is considered. The evaluation study showed that the PBPD method for steel moment resisting frame is significantly more efficient in achieving a certain inelastic displacement/ductility for given seismic hazards compared to the existing design standards/specification for this system. By Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis (NSPA) the PBPD method has achieved the target yield drift of 1.11% and FBD method has achieved 1.22% where the assumed yield drift was 1%. From NLRHA the percentage difference in achieved ductility factor for frame design by FBD method is 46.28% whereas for PBPD method it is 16.81%. From IDA inter storey drift is observed maximum in AISC design frame compared to PBPD design frame. Therefore, PBPD method frames responded as intended in design with much improved performances over those of the corresponding FBD method.