ارزیابی لرزه‌ای غیرخطی ساختمان‌ها توسط روش‌های تحلیل تقریبی استاتیکی و دینامیکی و مقایسه با تحلیل‌های دقیق

نویسندگان
حسین تحقیقی 1
محمدرضا طامه 2
1 Civil Eng. Department, University of Kashan
2 دانشجوی دکترای مهندسی سازه، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس
چکیده
امروزه به منظور ارزیابی لرزه‌ای سازه‌ها، روش‌های تحلیل استاتیکی و دینامیکی غیرخطی به سرعت در حال گسترش می‌باشند. روش‌های تحلیل دینامیکی غیرخطی به حجم زیاد محاسبات نیازمند بوده و اغلب زمان‌بر هستند. از طرف دیگر برای تعیین تقاضا و ظرفیت لرزه‌ای سازه‌ها در طراحی بر اساس عملکرد، دقت و سرعت در انجام محاسبات دو معیار مهم محسوب می‌شوند. این موضوع باعث پدید آمدن انواع روش‌های نوین بر اساس مفاهیم مربوط به تحلیل-های استاتیکی و دینامیکی غیرخطی شده است. در این نوشتار، به بررسی قابلیت‌، محدودیت‌ و‌ دقت روش‌MPA نسبت به NL-THA و نیز روش MIDA نسبت به IDA پرداخته می‌شود. بدین منظور دو مدل ساختمان فولادی 5 و 15 طبقه با سیستم‌ مقاوم قاب خمشی با شکل‌پذیری ویژه درجهت X و قاب ساده با مهاربندی ضربدری در جهتY طراحی شده‌اند. با استفاده از تحلیل‌های غیرخطی ناشی از زلزله‌های دور از گسل، تغییرمکان نسبی و مطلق طبقات ساختمان به عنوان اندازه‌ی خسارت محاسبه می‌شود. براساس نتایج به دست آمده، روش MPA در مقایسه با روش NL-THA در قاب‌های 5 طبقه )خمشی و مهاربندی( و همچنین در قاب 15 طبقه خمشی از دقت قابل قبول در تخمین تقاضاهای لرزه‌ای برخوردار می‌باشد. اما برای قاب ‌15 طبقه مهاربندی با درنظر گرفتن اثرات سه مود اول سازه نمی‌توان به پاسخ دقیق دست یافت. به علاوه، نتایج نشان می‌دهند که روش MIDA از دقت قابل قبولی نسبت به روش IDA برخوردار است که با توجه به زمان تحلیل کمتر و نتایج محافظه کارانه‌تر می‌توان روش MIDA را در ارزیابی عملکرد سازه‌ها مورد استفاده قرار داد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله English

Approximate Nonlinear Seismic Evaluation of Frame Buildings by Static and Dynamic Analysis Methods and Comparison with the Exact Solutions

چکیده English

Performance-based earthquake engineering requires accurate estimation of the seismic demand and capacity of structures. In recent years, various kinds of nonlinear static and dynamic analyses have been developed for the seismic evaluation of structures. Nonlinear dynamic time history analysis method is not only very time consuming, but also needs a proper skill and proficiency in order to interpret its results. For the performance evaluation of the structures, the speed and also the precision of conducting different analyses are very significant criteria. This issue has led to the creation of various new methods based on the principles of nonlinear and incremental static and dynamic analysis. One of the methods that has been proposed to tackle this task is incremental dynamic analysis (IDA). This procedure requires non-linear time history analyses (NL-THA) of the structure for an ensemble of ground motions, each scaled to many intensity levels, selected to cover a wide range of structural response; all the way from elastic behaviour to global instability. From the results of such computation, it is possible to determine structural capacities (or ground motion intensities) corresponding to various limit states; immediate occupancy (IO), life safety (LS), or collapse prevention (CP). Another approach to reduce the computational effort required for IDA is to estimate seismic demands for the practical structures by modal pushover analysis (MPA), an approximate procedure, instead of non-linear RHA. Thus, each of the many non-linear RHA required in IDA is replaced by a MPA. In addition, a more recent proposed method logically combines two different techniques, IDA and MPA is employed, presented by modal incremental dynamic analysis (MIDA). Using MIDA procedure, simple approximate curves that present a realistic linear and non-linear seismic behavior of the structure headed for the calculation of the damage measure (DM) due to the applied scaled level of earthquakes can easily be extracted. In this study, the capability, limitation and precision of MPA in comparison with NL-THA and also MIDA in comparison with IDA method are evaluated. For this purpose, two steel building models of 5 and 15-story with special moment resisting frame (MRF) in X direction and simple frame with X-bracing in Y direction has been designed. Furthermore, seven far field earthquake records are used for nonlinear analyses. In the current article, acceleration spectral intensity of the first mode of vibration with 5% damping, i.e. Sa(T1, %5) factor, are used as of intensity measure (IM). The story deflection and story drift are chosen as of the most important DM parameters to estimate the seismic vulnerability of structures in design practice. Comparison of the numerical results reveals that the MPA method has good accuracy in building seismic demands evaluation for 5-story frames (MRFs and braced frames) and 15-story MRF. However, no exact response is obtained for 15-story braced frame, considering the first three vibration modes of the structure. It is also shown that the results from MIDA simple method compares favorably to the IDA method. Thus, MIDA can be served by design engineers for seismic analysis in order to evaluate structural performance due to its relative simplicity and minimal computational effort.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Seismic evaluation
Nonlinear behavior
Approximate analysis
Exact analysis
Steel building
[1] Krawinkler, H., Seneviratna, G.D.P.K., “Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation”, Engineering Structures, 20(4-6), pp. 452-464, 1998.
[2] Bracci, J.M., Kunnath, S.K., and Reinhorn, A.M., “Seismic performance and retrofit evaluation for reinforced concrete structures”. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE; 123(1), pp. 3–10, 1997.
[3] Gupta, B., Kunnath, S.K., “Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic evaluation of structures”, Earthquake Spectra; 16(2), pp. 367–392, 2000.
[4] Sasaki, K.K., Freeman, S.A., and Paret, T.F., “Multimode pushover procedure (MMP) A method to identify the effect of higher modes in a pushover analysis”, Proceeding of the 6th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, Washington, 1998.
[5] Kunnath, S.K., Gupta, B., “Validity of deformation demand estimates using nonlinear static procedures”, Proceeding of the U.S. Japan Workshop on Performance- Based Engineering for Reinforced Concrete Building Structures, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan, 2000.
[6] Shakeri, K., Shayanfar, M.A., and Kabeyasawa, T., “A story shear-based adaptive pushover procedure for estimating seismic demands of buildings”, Engineering Structures, 32, pp. 174–83, 2010.
[7] Chopra, A.K., Goel, R.K., “A modal  pushover  analysis procedure to estimating seismic demands for buildings: Theory and preliminary evaluation”, PEER Report 2001/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California, 2001.
[8] Bertero, V.V., “Strength and deformation capacities of buildings under extreme environments”, Structural Engineering and Structural Mechanics, Pister KS (ed), Prentice Hall, New Jersey, pp. 211-215, 1977.
[9] Bazzurro, P., Cornell, C.A., “Seismic hazard analysis for nonlinear structures. I: Methodology”, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 120 (11), 1994.
[10] Bazzurro, P., Cornell, C.A., “Seismic hazard analysis for nonlinear structures. II: Applications”, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 120 (11), 1994.
[11] Luco, N., Cornell, C.A., “Effects of connection fractures on SMRF seismic drift demands”, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 126, pp. 127-136, 2000.
[12] Yun, S.Y., Hamburger, R.O, Cornell, C.A., and Foutch, D.A., “Seismic performance for steel moment frames”, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 128 (4), pp. 534-545, 2002.
[13] Mofid, S., Zarfam, P., and Raeisi Fard, B., “On the modal incremental dynamic analysis”, The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 14 (4), pp. 315–329, 2005.
[14] Code No. 360, “Instruction for seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings”, Vice presidency for strategic planning and supervision, Islamic Republic of Iran, First Revision, 2014 (In Persian).
[15] Vamvatsikos, D., Cornell, C.A., “Seismic performance, capacity and rellability of  structures as seen through incremental dynamic analysis”, Department of   civil and environmental engineering, Stanford University, Report No. 151,  August 2005.
[16] Tameh, M.R., “The result investigation of modal pushover analysis and incremental dynamic analysis in isolated steel buildings”, MSc thesis, University of Kashan, Kashan, Iran (2014), (in Persian).
 [17] PEER, “Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research center strong motion database”, http://peer.berkeley.edu, 2015.
 
[18] CSI (Computers  and  Structures Inc.),  “ETABS  V 2015 Analysis Reference Manual”, CSI, Berkeley, 2015.
[19] Iranian National Building Code (part 10), “Steel structure design”, Ministry of Road, Housing and Urban Development, Tehran (2013) (In Persian).
[20] Iranian National Building Code (part 6), “Design load for buildings”, Ministry of Road, Housing and Urban Development, Tehran (2013) (In Persian).
[21] Standard No. 2800, “Iranian code of practice for seismic resistance design of buildings”, 4th Edn., Ministry of Road, Housing and Urban Development, Tehran (2014) (In Persian).
[22] CSI. SAP2000V-17.3. “Integrated finite element analysis and design of structures basic analysis reference manual. Berkeley (CA, USA)": Computers and Structures Inc, 2010.
[23] Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Scott, M.H., and Fenves, G.L., “OpenSees Version 2.4.5 User Manual”, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), University of California, Berkeley, 2009. (Available from: http://opensees.berkeley.edu, last accessed March 2014).
[24] Uriz, P., Filippou, F.C., and Mahin, S.A., “Model for cycle inelastic buckling of steel braces”, Journal of  Structural Engineering, 134 (4), pp. 619–628, 2008.
[25] FEMA 350, “Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame buildings”, Prepared for SAC joint venture partnership by guidelines development committee, 2000.
[26] Barakati, S.I., and Daneshjoo, F., “Seismic demand and capacity of steel moment resisting frames under near-fault earthquakes using incremental dynamic analysis”, Modares Civil Engineering Journal, 14(1), pp. 1-14, 2014 (In Persian)
مهندسی عمران مدرس
دوره 17، شماره 4
مهر و آبان 1396
صفحه 101-112