Demand and Capacity of Structural Elements for Steel Moment Resisting Frames in Near Field of Fault

Authors
Abstract
Experiments from disaster earthquakes showed, from Forward directivity, Backward directivity and Filing step effects in near fault strong motion, Forward directivity has more severe effects on engineering structures. In near fault regions when rupture propagation of fault is toward to the construction site and velocity of strong motion waves is approximately equal to rupture propagation speed, the velocity time history record of ground that is normal to the fault surface has 1 to 3 long period pulses with high magnitude. This future causes to impose more demands of strength and ductility to structures located normal to the fault line in near field of fault. Also average amplitude of response spectrum of near fault earthquakes are about 1.1 to 2 times more than average response spectrum of regions located far from fault. To estimation of forward directivity effect on structural elements, in this study variation of demand and capacity of beams and columns of steel moment resisting frames are studied under effect of forward directivity with variation of models height. So the variation of strength and ductility demand of structure elements have been estimated under effect of forward directivity based on FEMA356 instruction by 100 time history nonlinear dynamic analyses for 5 structural models. The modes were steel moment resisting farms with 3, 5, 7, 10 and 15 stories height. To studding about effect of forward directivity on beams, maximum nodal rotation, maximum absolute moment and seismic performance of beams studied. Results showed forward directivity causes to increase nodal rotation 1.1 to 1.7 times more for low-rise models (7 stories and less) and 1.4 to 3.2 times more fore high-rise models. The maximum moment of beams is increased 2 to 16% for low-rise models and 10 to 50% for high-rise models. In life safety level, demand to capacity ratio of performance level of beams is increased between 1 to 1.6 times more for low-rise models and 1.2 to 3.2 times more for high-rise models. Also it has been indicated that forward directivity has not any effects on beams ductility. Studding on forward directivity effects on columns showed because of interaction between axial force and moment of columns, forward directivity is able to effect on moment capacity and ductility of columns. So forward directivity increases 2 to 20% axial force of columns related to height of models and location of columns. Results illustrate axial force increasing about 20% causes to decrease 12.5 to 50% of moment strength capacity of column and also it can decreases 20 to 50% rotation ductility of columns. On the other hand forward directivity causes to increase moment demand of columns about 30 to 56% for high-rise models. Conclusions showed forward directivity effects causes to increase demand to capacity ratio of structural elements about 1.1 to 1.75 times more for low raise models (7stories and less) and 1.5 to 5 times more for high rise models. Also it is considered that aspect ratio of structure has a direct relationship to amplification of forward directivity effect on columns.

Keywords


] Bruce A.; Bolt; “Seismic input motions for nonlinear structural analysis”; Journal of Earthquake Technology; 41(2-4), Dec 2004, page 223-232.
[2] Bozorgnia; Yousef; Bertero; Vitelmo V.; Earthquake Engineering:  From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering; Florida, CRC Press LLC, 2004.
[3] Hall; John F.; Seismic response of steel frame buildings to near-fault ground motions; A report of the California Institute of Technology, Report No.EERL 97-05, Pasadena, California, 1997.
[4] سلطان زاده؛ حمید رضا؛ واهبی؛ مرادعلی؛ زربخش؛ حبیب الله؛ مکانیسم خرابی ساختمانهای شهر بم و روشهای کسب آمادگی در مقابل زلزله؛ سازمان نظام مهندسی ساختمان استان خوزستان، 1383.
[5] Gerami; M.; Abdollahzadeh; D. ; “Estimation of Forward Directivity Effect on Design Spectra in Near Field of Fault”, Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research; Textroad Journals; 2nd year, No.9, 2012.
[6] هیئت نویسندگان؛ آیین نامه طراحی ساختمان‌ها در برابر زلزله، استاندارد 84-2800 ویرایش سوم؛ نشریه ض-253؛ مرکز تحقیقات ساختمان و مسکن، 1384.
[7] عبداله زاده؛ غلامرضا؛ آل هاشم؛ اردلان؛ "توزیع انرژی در طبقات قابهای فولادی مهاربندی هم مرکز تحت نگاشتهای حوزه دور و نزدیک"؛ نشریه علمی و پژوهشی سازه و فولاد؛ انجمن سازه و فولاد؛ سال ششم، شماره هفتم، بهار و تابستان 1389.
[8] Stewart; Jonathan P.; Chiou; Shyh-Jeng; Bray; Jonathan D.; Graves; Robert W.; Somerville; Paul G. and Abrahamson; Norman A.; Ground Motion Evaluation Procedures for Performance-Based Design; National Science Foundation, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1792, 2001.
[9] Naeim; Farzad; THE SEISMIC DESIGN HANDBOOK, 2nd Edition; Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001.
[10] International Conference of Building Officials; 1997, Uniform Building Code; Whittier, CA, 1997.
[11] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); No.356; PRESTANDARD AND COMMENTARY FOR THE SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF BUILDINGS; prepared by the SEAOC, ATC, and CUREE Joint Venture for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. (FEMA Publication No. 356), 2000.
[12] شاهوردیان؛ کوروش؛ مروری بر طرح و اجرای سازه‌های فولادی مقاوم دربرابر زلزله؛ مرکز نشردانشگاه صنعتی امیرکبیر، تهران، چاپ اول، بهار 1381.