Seismic Demand and Capacity of Steel Moment Resisting Frames Under Near-Fault Earthquakes Using Incremental Dynamic Analysis

Authors
S. Barakati1
F. Daneshjoo
Tarbiat Modares University
Abstract
In seismic performance based design procedures, nonlinear static pushover analysis (SPO) and incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) are usually used for determining seismic demand and capacity of moment resisting frames (SMR). The results of these methods are often presented using curves of intensity measures (IM) Vs damage indexes (DI). For far field earthquakes, different intensity measures, such as acceleration spectral intensity of the first mode of vibration with 5% damping i.e. Sa (T1, %5) factor are used. But for near field earthquakes, it is necessary to consider other suitable IM's. In this article, the difference between IDA and SPO curves for near field earthquakes compared to that for far field earthquakes are shown for three SMR frames which are designed according to Iranian code of practice using 15 pairs of near and far field earthquakes. Then some other intensity measure factors which may be suitable for near and far field earthquakes, are considered. These IM's are compared with the use of standard definitions of "efficiency" and "sufficiency". It is concluded that intensity measure IM1I&2E which considers second mode effects and nonlinear behavior, is much more efficient and better sufficient than more often used Sa(T1, %5) factor.

Keywords

Bazzurro, P. and Cornell, C. A, “Seismic hazard
analysis for non-linear structures. I:Metodology”
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering,
120(11): 3320–3344, 1994.
[2] Bazzurro, P. and Cornell, C. A, “Seismic hazard
analysis for non-linear structures.
II:Applications” ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering, 120(11): 3345–3365, 1994.
[3] Cornell C. A Jalayer F, Hamburger RO, Foutch
DA, “The probabilistic basis for the 2000
SAC/FEMA steel moment frame guidelines”.
[4] Shome N, Cornell, CA, “probabilistic seismic
demand analysis of nonlinear structures” Report
No. RMS-35,RMS program, Stanford University,
1999.
[5] Vamvatsikos, D., Cornell CA, “Incremental
Dynamic Analysis” Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 31(3), 491-514, 2002.
[6] Sashi K. Kunnath, “IDA Capacity Curves: The
Need for Alternative Intensity Factors” ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering, 120(11):
3320–3344, 1994.
[7] Vamvatsikos D., Cornell CA, “Developing
effcient scalar and vector intensity measures for
IDA capacity estimation by incorporating elastic
spectral shape information” Earthquake Engng
Struct. Dyn.; 34:1573–1600, 2005.
[8] Bazzurro, P. and Cornell, C. A, “Seismic hazard
analysis for non-linear structures. I:Metodology”
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering,
120(11): 3320–3344, 1994.
مقررات ملّی ساختمان، مبحث ششم،
"بارهای وارد ]
بر ساختمان
"، دفتر تدوین و ترویج مقررات ملی
.
ساختمان، تهران، ایران، 1384
11 ]
استاندارد ملّی 2800 ایران، "آیین نامه طراحی ]
ساختمانها در برابر زلزله
"، ویرایش سوم ، انتشارات
مرکز تحقیقات ساختمان و مسکن، تهران، ایران،
.1384
12 ]
مقررات ملّی ساختمان، مبحث دهم، "طرح واجرای ]
ساختمان های فولادی
"، دفتر تدوین و ترویج
.
مقررات ملی ساختمان، تهران، ایران، 1387
[13] Federal Emergency Management Agency,
“NEHRP GUIDELINES FOR THE SEISMIC
REHABILITATION OF BUILDINGS”, FEMA
273.
[14] Federal Emergency Management Agency,
“PRESTANDARD AND COMMENTARY
FOR THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF
BUILDINGS” , FEMA 356.
15 ]
نشریه 360 ، "دستورالعمل بهسازی لرزه ای ساختمان ]
های موجود
"، انتشارات سازمان مدیریت برنامه ریزی
کشور، تهران، ایران،
1385
[16] Nicolas Luco and C. Allin Cornell, “Structure-
Specific Scalar Intensity Measures for Near-
Source and Ordinary Earthquake Ground
Motions”, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
94305-4020, 2002.
Modares Civil Engineering journal
Volume 14, Issue 1
May and June 2014
Pages 1-14