Document Type: Regular Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin Branch, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin Branch, Iran

3 Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, United States

10.22115/rer.2019.184387.1009

Abstract

Finding an appropriate system to absorb the intended energy of the earthquake is of great importance in seismic region. The eccentric bracing frame (EBF) is one of the structural systems that reveal proper behavior during earthquakes phenomenon. In doing so, design codes attempt to optimize EBF seismic behave to avoid failure of the earthquake regarding a set of the criteria. Indeed, the dynamic nonlinear approaches are the most powerful methods which solve the motion equations based on the time history of the ground motion. However, the dynamic nonlinear methods require a rigorous effort to nail the structural responses. Therefore, there is a need to develop a simplified approach such a pushover method which is based on the non-linear static analysis. The main attempt of this research is to present a simplified push overload pattern for EBF system to sufficiently divulge the structural performance subjected to the seismic loadings. In this investigation, three models of the middle rise and tall rise, 10, 20, 30 stories of buildings are considered, which are designed according to the available codes. Accordingly, several different load patterns are developed. The idea behind of each proposed load patterns inspired by the deflection of a rod subjected to the flame. Herein, the meaning of the flame refers to the region of the structures which is subjected to the plastic hinges.

Keywords

Main Subjects

[1]     Naeim F. The seismic design handbook. 1989.

[2]     Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary. Structural Engineers Association of California; 1980.

[3]     Popov EP, Engelhardt MD. Seismic eccentrically braced frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1988;10:321–54. doi:10.1016/0143-974X(88)90034-X.

[4]     Koboevic S. An approach to seismic design of eccentrically braced frames. McGill University, 2003.

[5]     Li SJY. Performance-based seismic design of eccentrically braced steel frames using target drift and failure mode. Earthquakes and Structures 2017;13:443–54. doi:10.12989/EAS.2017.13.5.443.

[6]     Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings. California: 1996.

[7]     Council BSS. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency; 1997.

[8]     Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington, D.C.: 2000.

[9]     Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. Washington, D.C.: 2000.

[10]    Ashtari P, Ghasemi SH. Seismic design of structures using a modified non-stationary critical excitation. Earthquakes and Structures 2013;4:383–96. doi:10.12989/eas.2013.4.4.383.

[11]    Ghasemi SH, Ashtari P. Combinatorial continuous non-stationary critical excitation in M.D.O.F structures using multi-peak envelope functions. Earthquakes and Structures 2014;7:895–908. doi:10.12989/eas.2014.7.6.895.

[12]    seismic design guideline Iran standard 2800. 3rd ed. Construction and residential research center; 1381.

[13]    10th section of national construction code. Construction and residential research center; 1381.

[14]    Seismic Rehabilitation of existing buildings. 1385.

[15]    Ghasemi SH, Nowak AS. Reliability Analysis for Serviceability Limit State of Bridges Concerning Deflection Criteria. Structural Engineering International 2016;26:168–75. doi:10.2749/101686616X14555428758722.

[16]    Ghasemi SH, Nowak AS. Reliability analysis of circular tunnel with consideration of the strength limit state. Geomechanics and Engineering 2018;15:879. doi:10.12989/GAE.2018.15.3.879.

[17]    Ghasemi S. Target reliability analysis for structures. 2015.

[18]    Ghasemi SH, Nowak AS. Reliability index for non-normal distributions of limit state functions. Structural Engineering and Mechanics 2017;62:365–72. doi:10.12989/sem.2017.62.3.365.

[19]    Ghasemi SH, Nowak AS. Mean maximum values of non-normal distributions for different time periods. International Journal of Reliability and Safety 2016;10:99. doi:10.1504/IJRS.2016.078381.

[20]    Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Engineering Structures 1998;20:452–64. doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00092-8.

[21]    Gupta B, Kunnath SK. Adaptive Spectra‐Based Pushover Procedure for Seismic Evaluation of Structures. Earthquake Spectra 2000;16:367–92. doi:10.1193/1.1586117.

[22]    Yun S-Y, Hamburger RO, Cornell CA, Foutch DA. Seismic Performance Evaluation for Steel Moment Frames. Journal of Structural Engineering 2002;128:534–45. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4(534).

[23]    Bosco M, Marino EM, Rossi PP. Influence of modelling of steel link beams on the seismic response of EBFs. Engineering Structures 2016;127:459–74. doi:10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2016.08.062.

[24]    Bosco M, Marino EM, Rossi PP. Proposal of modifications to the design provisions of Eurocode 8 for buildings with split K eccentric braces. Engineering Structures 2014;61:209–23. doi:10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2013.07.022.

[25]    Montuori R, Nastri E, Piluso V. Influence of the bracing scheme on seismic performances of MRF-EBF dual systems. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2017;132:179–90. doi:10.1016/J.JCSR.2017.01.018.

[26]    Mastrandrea L, Nastri E, Piluso V. Validation of a Design Procedure for Failure Mode Control of EB-Frames: Push-Over and IDA Analyses. The Open Construction and Building Technology Journal 2013;7:193–207. doi:10.2174/1874836801307010193.

[27]    SAP2000 C and S. Three Dimensional Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis and Design of Structures. California, U.S.A.: Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley; n.d.

[28]    Minimum Building Loads, Part 6. Tehran, Iran: Building and Housing Research Center; 2006.