Advertisement

Quantifying response variability of steel moment frames due to seismic uncertainties

  • Amir Hossein NorouziEmail author
  • Mohsen Gerami
Original Paper

Abstract

Seismic uncertainties pose response estimation procedures with serious concerns about proper reflection of ground motion intensity measure (IM) and reasonable scaling of IM in a scenario-based study. The extent of response variability due to these uncertainties is quantified in this article for steel moment-resisting frames (SMRFs). For this purpose, three 3-, 7-, and 15-story SMRFs are designed and nonlinearly modeled in OpenSees Program. To establish an initial collection of building responses in a diverse range of intensities and for multiple ground motion records, incremental dynamic analysis is performed using a set of 44 records. At the initial phase, the efficiency of two well-known IMs, i.e., peak ground acceleration (PGA) and first-mode spectral acceleration Sa (T1), is re-evaluated for the studied structures. This is achieved by quantifying the dispersion of building response data at different levels of behavior nonlinearity. The dispersion of response data caused by PGA is shown to reach 1–13 times of the Sa’s where the 1 ratio is related to the linear response range of the shortest 3-story structure and the 13 ratios reflect the collapse response of the 15-story structure. Afterwards, scatter of building responses extracted using different number of acceleration records and various intensity scaling methods is evaluated. The dispersion of the response data shows clear correlation to the selected scaling method whereas using larger suites of records does not necessarily lead to a decrease of the data dispersion.

Keywords

Intensity measure selection Record set scaling method Inelastic dynamic response Response dispersion 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors state that there is no conflict of interest in this research.

References

  1. Alavi, B., & Krawinkler, H. (2000). Consideration of near-fault ground motion effects in seismic design. In Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (p. 8).Google Scholar
  2. American Institute of Steel Construction Inc. (2005). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. Chicago, IL: ANSI, AISC 341-05.Google Scholar
  3. American Society of Civil Engineers. (2010). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. Reston: ASCE 7-10.Google Scholar
  4. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia. (2016). Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures. Reston: ASCE 7-16.Google Scholar
  5. Ansi, B. (2005). AISC 360-05-specification for structural steel buildings. Chicago: AISC.Google Scholar
  6. Applied Technology Council. (2009). Quantification of building seismic performance factors. Washington, DC: US Department of Homeland Security, FEMA.Google Scholar
  7. Bazzurro, P. (1998). Probabilistic seismic demand analysis. Stanford University.Google Scholar
  8. Berman, J. W. (2011). Seismic behavior of code designed steel plate shear walls. Engineering Structures, 33(1), 230–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clayton, P. M., Berman, J. W., & Lowes, L. N. (2011). Seismic design and performance of self-centering steel plate shear walls. Journal of Structural Engineering, 138(1), 22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clayton, P. M., Berman, J. W., & Lowes, L. N. (2015). Seismic performance of self-centering steel plate shear walls with beam-only-connected web plates. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 106, 198–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Code, U. B. (1997). UBC-97. In Structural engineering design provisions. International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California.Google Scholar
  12. Gerami, M., & Sivandi-Pour, A. (2014). Performance-based seismic rehabilitation of existing steel eccentric braced buildings in near fault ground motions. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 23(12), 881–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamburger, R., Rojahn, C., Heintz, J., & Mahoney, M. (2012). FEMA P58: Next-generation building seismic performance assessment methodology. In Fifteenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
  14. Jalali, S. A., & Banazadeh, M. (2016). Development of a new deteriorating hysteresis model for seismic collapse assessment of thin steel plate shear walls. Thin-Walled Structures, 106, 244–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jalali, S. A., Banazadeh, M., Abolmaali, A., & Tafakori, E. (2012). Probabilistic seismic demand assessment of steel moment frames with side-plate connections. Scientia Iranica, 19(1), 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jalali, S. A., Banazadeh, M., Tafakori, E., & Abolmaali, A. (2011). Seismic performance assessment of steel moment frames with generic locally reinforced connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 67(8), 1261–1271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kalkan, E., & Chopra, A. K. (2010). Practical guidelines to select and scale earthquake records for nonlinear response history analysis of structures. US Geological Survey Open-File Report, 1068, 126.Google Scholar
  18. Kurama, Y. C., & Farrow, K. T. (2003). Ground motion scaling methods for different site conditions and structure characteristics. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 32(15), 2425–2450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Luco, N., & Cornell, C. A. (2007). Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthquake Spectra, 23(2), 357–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Masaeli, H., Khoshnoudian, F., & Musician, S. (2018). Incremental dynamic analysis of nonlinear rocking soil–structure systems. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 104, 236–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Scott, M. H., & Fenves, G. (2004). OpenSees users manual. PEER, University of California, Berkeley, 18, 56–57.Google Scholar
  22. Miranda, E. (1993). Evaluation of site-dependent inelastic seismic design spectra. Journal of Structural Engineering, 119(5), 1319–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nau, J. M., & Hall, W. J. (1984). Scaling methods for earthquake response spectra. Journal of Structural Engineering, 110(7), 1533–1548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shome, N. (1999). Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  25. Shome, N., & Cornell, C. A. (1998). Normalization and scaling accelerograms for nonlinear structural analysis. In Proceedings of the 6th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering (pp. 1–12). Seattle.Google Scholar
  26. Shome, N., Cornell, C. A., Bazzurro, P., & Carballo, J. E. (1998). Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses. Earthquake Spectra, 14(3), 469–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sivandi-Pour, A., Gerami, M., & Kheyroddin, A. (2015). Determination of modal damping ratios for non-classically damped rehabilitated steel structures. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology. Transactions of Civil Engineering, 39(C1), 81.Google Scholar
  28. Sivandi-Pour, A., Gerami, M., & Khodayarnezhad, D. (2014). Equivalent modal damping ratios for non-classically damped hybrid steel concrete buildings with transitional storey. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 5(3), 383–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Soleimani, S., Aziminejad, A., & Moghadam, A. S. (2018). Approximate two-component incremental dynamic analysis using a bidirectional energy-based pushover procedure. Engineering Structures, 157, 86–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Standard No. 2800. (2014). Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings (4th ed.).Google Scholar
  31. Vamvatsikos, D., & Cornell, C. A. (2002). Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31(3), 491–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Venture, N. C. J. (2011). Selecting and scaling earthquake ground motions for performing response-history analyses (pp. 11–917). NIST GCR.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Payam Noor University (PNU)TehranIslamic Republic of Iran
  2. 2.Semnan UniversitySemnanIslamic Republic of Iran

Personalised recommendations