Incremental Dynamic Analysis of Concentrically Braced Frames Subjected to Near Field Ground Motions

Authors
Abstract
In last decades, most of the famous seismic design codes, had concentrated mainly on far field earthquakes. Generally no special requirements were introduced to minimize near fault earthquake effects. Near field ground motions have caused several structural damages in recent decades, causing seismic codes to be updated with related requirements. As a result, it seems necessary to evaluate domestic seismic design codes and their requirements to see their effectiveness in designing safe structures against near fault earthquakes. In this paper seismic behavior of concentrically braced frames (CBFs) designed based on different seismic design codes is comparatively studied. Various Frames of different heights, (5, 8 and 12 stories), and bracing types (X-bracing and inverted V bracing) are designed based on the Iranian seismic code (standard no.2800) and also taking into account the near fault requirements of AISC-ASD 89 and UBC-97. These frames are analyzed using a nonlinear time history analysis method, namely “Incremental Dynamic Analysis” (IDA) under near field ground motions. IDA is an emerging method in analysis of structures which allows estimating seismic capacity, limit states and demand via series of nonlinear dynamic analyses using multiple scaled ground motion records. A total of 15 near filed time histories are selected according to special characteristics namely: fault distance to site (less than 10 km), fault direction, earthquake moment magnitude, time history frequency content, time history velocity content, shear wave velocity in the site soil and near fault wave’s pulse nature. The 15 selected earthquake time histories were scaled in several steps. To achieve a more accurate point for yielding point of the frames, 0.1g steps were used in the initial elastic region. On other important step was to select proper intensity measure and damage measure. According to FEMA-350 requirements, the maximum inter story drift was selected as damage measure. For selecting a proper intensity measure, four intensity measures were selected and compared together, namely: first mode spectral acceleration , first mode spectral velocity , peak ground acceleration PGA and the equivalent first n modes spectral acceleration. Among them, first mode spectral acceleration showed the least dispersion in the analysis results. Finally, all the 20 frames designed were analyzed using the 15 time histories selected in multiple steps and IDA curves were extracted. Using FEMA requirements the points corresponding to 2 performance levels namely IO and CP were defined on summarized IDA curves using which it was possible to compare the performance of the frames. The results of this paper imply that frames designed based on the near field seismic design criteria of UBC-97 have better performance under near-field earthquakes comparing to others. It can be concluded that the requirements of the Iranian seismic code should be updated according to the effects of near fault earthquakes. Besides, frames with X-bracing system showed better performance in comparison with chevron ones. Also the deficiencies in the seismic requirements of the domestic codes are more obvious while designing taller frames and moving from 5 story frames to 12 story ones, their seismic performance obviously deteriorate.

Keywords


[1] Chen X, Iwan W 1994, "Important Near-Field Ground Motion Data from the Landers Earthquake" Proceedings, 10th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vienna.
[2] Luco N, 2002, "Probabilistic seismic demand analysis, SMRF connection fractures and near source effects", dissertation;
[3] Goel C, Chao Sh, Bayat MR, 2008, "Performance-based plastic design of steel concentric braced frames for enhanced confidence level" Proceedings, 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.
[4] Cornell CA, Shome N, 1999. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. Report no. RMS-35, RMS Program. Stanford: Stanford University;
[5] Cornell CA, Baker J, 2005, "A Vector Valiued Ground Motion Intensity Measure for Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis", Report No. RMS-89, RMS Program, Stanford University, Stanford.
[6] Asgarian B, Jalaeefar A, 2011, “Incremental dynamic analysis of steel braced frames designed based on the first, second and third editions of the Iranian seismic code (standard no. 2800)” , THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS. 20, 190–207.
[7] BHRC (Building and Housing Research Center). 1986. Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings. Standard No. 2800, 1st edn. BHRC: Tehran.
[8] BHRC (Building and Housing Research Center). 1998. Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings. Standard No. 2800, 2nd edn. BHRC: Tehran.
[9] BHRC (Building and Housing Research Center). 2004. Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings. Standard No. 2800, 3rd edn. BHRC: Tehran.
[10] AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction). 1989. Manual of Steel Construction. Allowable Stress Design AISC-ASD89. AISC: Chicago, IL.
[11] AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction). 2005. Seismic Provision for Structural Steel Building. AISC: Chicago, IL.
[12] UBC, 1997, Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, Wittier, Calif.
[13] Crisfield MA. 1991. Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures, Vol. 1. John Wiley & Sons: New York. Mazzoni S. 2006. Manual of OpenSees 1.73. University of California: Berkeley, CA.
[14] Zayas V, Popov E. 1981. Inelastic structural modeling of braced offshore platforms for seismic loading. UCB/EERC-81/04, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
 
[15] Robert A. Williams, William J. Stephenson, Jack K. Odum, and David M. Worley, 1994,  High-resolution Surface-Seismic Imaging Techniques for NEHRP Soil Profile Classifications and Earthquake Hazard Assessments in Urban Areas, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 97-501, (online edition)
[16] Jalayaer F, Cornell CA, 2004, "A technical Frame Work for Probability -Based Demand and Capacity factor (DCFD) seismic formats", Report No. RMS program, Stanfod University, Stanford.
[17] Vamvatsikos D. 2002. Seismic Performance, Capacity and Reliability of Structures as Seen Through Incremental Dynamic Analysis. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University: California.
[18] FEMA, 2000, Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame buildings, Report No. 350.