Comparing Versions 3 and 4 of Standard 2800, in Improving Seismic Behavior of Intermediate Moment Frame Buildings

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
M. mohammadi 1
F. Alizadeh 2
1 International institute of Earthquake Engineering and seismology
2 Graduated, Azad University
Abstract
Nowadays, performance evaluation of buildings against earthquakes is one of the common debates among researchers. Old buildings designed on the basis of previous versions of seismic codes are exposed to more damages in earthquakes. To evaluate vulnerability of existing buildings for earthquakes, Instruction on Rapid Earthquake Evaluation of the Existing Buildings (Code No. 364) has been proposed. By this code, a building can be rapidly evaluated by easily available data such as structural type, designing and construction date, appearance, etc., with very low cost. One of important parameters for such evaluation is the version of the seismic code (Standard 2800) which had been applied in the designing process of inspected building; later version has greater score. However, the rapid evaluation code (Code No. 364) has been prepared before releasing version 4 of Standard-2800 and therefore do not have the score of designing with this version. Therefore, this paper is focused on comparing version-3 and vetsion-4 of Standard 2800 in designing buildings. For this, three buildings, having 3, 5 or 7 story, with regular plane is considered. Each is designed twice, based on the version-3 and vetsion-4 and then their fragility curves are calculated. The obtained fragility curves are compared in two levels of earthquakes having return period of 475 years and 2475 years (PGA of these earthquakes are assumed as 0.35g and 0.5g, respectively). To achieve the fragility curves, 50 earthquake records, recommended by FEMA-P695, are considered. They include 22 far field ones, 14 near field ones having pulse and 14 near field records without pulse. To consider nonlinear behavior of the structural elements, concentrated plasticity is assumed at two ends of each element by Opensees software. Properties of the plastic hinges are introduced in the software based on Lignos model. The obtained results show that in IO performance level, there is no meaningful difference between the structures designed on the basis of version 3 and version 4 of Standard-2800. However, in Life Safety (LS) and Collapse Prevention (CP) performance levels, version 4 leads to much better structure. Furthermore, the difference between these two versions of standard is greater for 475 year earthquakes, in comparison with 2475 year earthquakes, and also for LS rather than CP performance level.

Keywords

Subjects

[1] Kennedy, R.P.; Cornell, A.C.; Campbell, R.D.; Kaplan, S. and Perla, H.F. 1980. “Probabilistic seismic safety study of an existing nuclear power plant", Nuclear Eng. & Design, 59(2).
[2] Kircher , C.A. and Martin W. 1993. Development of fragility Curve for Estimating of Earthquake Damage Work Shopon Continuing Action to Reduce losses from Earthquake, Washington, Dc: U.S.Geological Survey.
[3] Anagnos, T., Rojahn, C., & Kiremidjian, A. 1995. NCEER-ATC joint study on fragility of buildings. ATC-13.(1985-86). “Earthquake damage evaluation data California”, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C., USA.
[4] Singhal Ajay, & Kiremidjian Anne S. 1998. Bayesian Updating of Fragilities with Application to RC Frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 124(8), 922–929.
[5] Shinozuka, M. 1998. “Statistical Analysis of Bridge Fragility Curve”, proceeding of the Workshop on effective Systems for Bridge, New York, NY
[6] E. Dumova-Jovanoska.. 2000. Fragility curves for reinforced concrete structures in Scopje region. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 19(6), 455-466.
[7] Marano, G. C., Greco, R., & Morrone, E. 2011. Analytical evaluation of essential facilities fragility curves by using a stochastic approach. Engineering Structures, 33(1), 191-201.
[8] Asgarian, B., Sadrinezhad, A., & Alanjari, P. 2010. Seismic performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frames through incremental dynamic analysis. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 66(2), 178–190.
[9] Malekahmadi F., Birzhandi M. S. 2018. Probabilistic Assessment of ASD and LRFD code criteria for steel moment frames under the near-fault events using incremental dynamic analysis (IDA). Modares Civil Engineering Journal (M.C.E.J), Vol.18, No.2, (In Persian).
[10] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). HAZUS-MH MR5, technical and user's manual, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC (2010).
[11] ATC-40. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings. Redwood City, California (1996).
[12] Astriana, L., Sangadji, S., Purwanto, E., & Kristiawan, S. A. 2017. Assessing Seismic Performance of Moment Resisting Frame and Frame-shear Wall System Using Seismic Fragility Curve. Procedia Engineering, 171(Supplement C), 1069–1076
[13] Barron-Covera, Raul 1999, “Spectral Evaluation of Seismic Fragility of Structures”, Ph.D.dissertation, Faculty of the Graduate School of the State University of New York at Buffalo.
[14] Building And Housing Research Center, "Iranian Code of Practice For Seismic Resistant Design Of Buildings", Standard No.2800(3rd Edition), 2004 (In Persian)
[15] Building And Housing Research Center, "Iranian Code of Practice For Seismic Resistant Design Of Buildings", Standard No.2800(4rd Edition), 2014 (In Persian)
[16] Office for the codification and promotion of National Building Regulations, "Designing and implementing steel buildings, Tehran, Iran, 2008 (In Persian)
[17] Office for the codification and promotion of National Building Regulations, "Designing and implementing steel buildings, Tehran, Iran, 2013 (In Persian)
[18] Lignos, D. G., & Krawinkler, H. 2010. Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading. Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(11), 1291-1302.
[19] Ibarra, L. F., and Krawinkler, H. 2005. “Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations,” Technical Report 152, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
[20] OpenSees 2010. “Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation”. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), (http://opensees.berkeley.edu).
[21] FEMA P 695. 2009. Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency, USA.
[22] ASCE 41-06, 2006, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
[23] Mohammadi M., Alizadeh F. 2018. Comparing fragility curves of buildings with intermediate steel moment frame according to versions 3 and 4 of Iranian earthquake code, MSc Thesis, Azad University, West Branch (In Persian).
[24] Department of technical affairs, Management and planning organization, “Instruction for seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings”, Code 360, Office of deputy for supervision, 2015 (In Persian).
Modares Civil Engineering journal
Volume 22, Issue 3
May and June 2022
Pages 229-240