The effect of different negative parameters on the performance of steel structures

Abstract

In this study, we present the effect of various negativity parameters on steel structures that cause post-earthquake damage based on performance-based assessment. In accordance with this purpose, eigenvalue and pushover analysis are carried out for different negativity parameters such as number of story, soft story, short column, hill-slope effect and irregularity in plan for a sample steel structure in this study. Structural models were created over the reference building to cover each negativity parameter within the scope of this study. Natural vibration period, base shear force, target displacements for damage estimation and stiffness values are obtained for each structural model separately. The comparisons with the reference building model results are made. The effect to behaviour of structures is determined and a reduction coefficient is proposed, for each negativity parameter, respectively. The proposed coefficients can be used to determine the risk priority in steel structures. It was concluded that each negativity parameter considered in this study reduces the behaviour of the building under the effect of earthquakes.

Keywords

• steel
• soft story
• irregularity in plan
• short coulmn
• hill-slope effect
• pushover
• eigenvalue

References

1. Ademović, N., Šipoš, T. K., Hadzima-Nyarko, M. 2020. Rapid assessment of earthquake risk for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 18(5), 1835-1863.
2. AFAD, 2020. https://tdth.afad.gov.tr/ (Access date: 08.04.2020)
3. Aksoylu, C., Arslan, M.H. 2019. Çerçeve türü betonarme binaların periyod hesaplarının farklı ampirik bağıntılara göre irdelenmesi. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(2), 569-581.
4. Alam, N., Alam, M. S., Tesfamariam, S. 2012. Buildings’ seismic vulnerability assessment methods: a comparative study. Natural Hazards, 62(2), 405-424.
5. Antoniou, S., Pinho, R. 2003. Seismostruct – Seismic Analysis program by Seismosoft. Technical manual and user manual.
6. Antoniou, S., Pinho, R. 2004. Advantages and limitations of adaptive and non-adaptive force-based pushover procedures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 8(04), 497-522.
7. Antoniou, S., Pinho, R. 2004. Development and verification of a displacement-based adaptive pushover procedure. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 8(05), 643-661.
8. Arslan, M. H., Ceylan, M., Koyuncu, T. 2015. Determining earthquake performances of existing reinforced concrete buildings by using ANN. International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 9(8), 1097-1101.

9. Aydinoğlu, M.N. 2003. An incremental response spectrum analysis procedure based on inelastic spectral displacements for multi-mode seismic performance evaluation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 1(1), 3-36.
10. Bal, I.E., Gulay, F.G., Tezcan, S.S. 2008. A new approach for the preliminary seismic assessment of RC buildings: P25 scoring method. Proceedings of 14th WCEE, 12-17.
11. Bracci, J.M., Kunnath, S.K., Reinhorn, A.M.1997. Seismic performance and retrofit evaluation of reinforced concrete structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, 123(1), 3-10.
12. Çağatay, İ.H., Beklen, C. 2009. Düzlem çerçevelerde kısa kolon etkisinin incelenmesi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(1), 91-97.
13. Chen, C.Y., Liu, K.C., Liu, Y.W., Huang, W.J. 2010. A case study of reinforced concrete short column under earthquake using experimental and theoretical investigations. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 36(2), 197-206.
14. Chever, L. 2012. Use of seismic assessment methods for planning vulnerability reduction of existing building stock. In Proceedings of the 15th World Conference On Earthquake Engineering—WCEE, Lisbon, Portugal.
15. Chopra, A.K., Goel, R.K. 2002. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 31(3), 561-582.
16. Coburn, A., Spence, R. 2003. Earthquake Protection. John Wiley & Sons.
17. Code, P. 2005. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance-part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.
18. Elnashai, A.S. 2001. Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for earthquake applications. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 12(1), 51-70.
19. Estêvão, J. M., Oliveira, C. S. 2015. A new analysis method for structural failure evaluation. Engineering Failure Analysis, 56, 573-584.
20. Eurocode, C.E.N. (2005). Eurocode-8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance-Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings, EN1998–3. European Committee for Standardization: Bruxelles, Belgium.
21. Gupta, B., Kunnath, S.K. 2000. Adaptive spectra‐based pushover procedure for seismic evaluation of structures. Earthquake Spectra, 16(2), 367-392.
22. Hadzima-Nyarko, M., Kalman Sipos, T. 2017. Insights from existing earthquake loss assessment research in Croatia. Earthquakes and Structures, 13(4), 365-375.
23. Harirchian, E., Lahmer, T. 2020. Improved rapid visual earthquake hazard safety evaluation of existing buildings using a type-2 fuzzy logic model. Applied Sciences, 10(7), 2375.
24. Harirchian, E., Lahmer, T., Buddhiraju, S., Mohammad, K., Mosavi, A. 2020. Earthquake safety assessment of buildings through rapid visual screening. Buildings, 10(3), 51.
25. Harirchian, E., Lahmer, T., Kumari, V., Jadhav, K. 2020. Application of Support Vector Machine Modeling for the Rapid Seismic Hazard Safety Evaluation of Existing Buildings. Energies, 13(13), 3340.
26. Herrera, R. G., Soberon, C.G. 2008. Influence of plan irregularity of buildings. In The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
27. Hsiao, F. P., Oktavianus, Y., Ou, Y. C. 2015. A pushover seismic analysis method for asymmetric and tall buildings. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 38(8), 991-1001.
28. Inel, M., Meral, E. 2016. Seismic performance of RC buildings subjected to past earthquakes in Turkey. Eartquakes and Structures, 11(3), 483-503.
29. Inel, M., Ozmen, H.B. 2006. Effects of plastic hinge properties in nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. Engineering Structures, 28(11), 1494-1502.
30. İnel, M., Özmen, H.B., Hıra, M.A. 2011. Yumuşak kat düzensizliğinin betonarme yapıların sismik davranışına etkilerinin değerlendirilmesi. TMMOB İnşaat Mühendisleri Odası İstanbul Şubesi, 7. Deprem Konferansı, Türkiye.
31. Işık, E. 2016. Consistency of the rapid assessment method for reinforced concrete buildings. Earthquakes and Structures, 11(5), 873-885.
32. Işık, E., Işık, M. F., Bülbül, M. A. 2017. Web based evaluation of earthquake damages for reinforced concrete buildings. Eartquakes and Structures, 13(4), 423-432.
33. Işık, E., Kutanis M., 2015. Performance based assessment for existing residential buildings in Lake Van basin and seismicity of the region. Earthquakes and Structures, 9(4), 893-910.
34. Işık, E., Özdemir, M. 2017. Performance based assessment of steel frame structures by different material models. International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(3), 1021-1031. Işık, M. F., Işık, E., Bülbül, M.A. 2018. Application of iOS/Android based assessment and monitoring system for building inventory under seismic impact. Gradevinar, 70(12), 1043-1056.
35. Jain, S. K., Mitra, K., Kumar, M., Shah, M. 2010. A proposed rapid visual screening procedure for seismic evaluation of RC-frame buildings in India. Earthquake Spectra, 26(3), 709-729.
36. Jalayer, F., De Risi, R., Manfredi, G. 2015. Bayesian Cloud Analysis: efficient structural fragility assessment using linear regression. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 13(4), 1183-1203.
37. Jara, J. M., Hernández, E. J., Olmos, B. A., Martínez, G. 2020. Building damages during the September 19, 2017 earthquake in Mexico City and seismic retrofitting of existing first soft-story buildings. Engineering Structures, 209, 109977.
38. Krawinkler, H.,Seneviratna, G.D.P.K. 1998. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Engineering Structures, 20(4-6), 452-464. Kutanis, M., Boru, E. O., Işık, E. 2017. Alternative instrumentation schemes for the structural identification of the reinforced concrete field test structure by ambient vibration measurements. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 21(5), 1793-1801.
39. Luo, Y. F., Liu, Y. P., Hu, Z. Y., Xiong, Z. 2017. A new method for dynamic analysis of spatial lattice structures based on mode selection and mode construction techniques. International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(3), 1157-1170.
40. Menegotto, M. 1973. Method of analysis for cyclically loaded RC plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under combined normal force and bending. In Proc. of IABSE symposium on resistance and ultimate deformability of structures acted on by well defined repeated loads (pp. 15-22).
41. Mohammad, Z., Baqi, A., Arif, M. 2017. Seismic response of RC framed buildings resting on hill slopes. Procedia Engineering, 173, 1792-1799.
42. Moretti, M.L., Tassios, T.P. 2013. Design in shear of reinforced concrete short columns. Earthquakes and Structures, 4(3), 265-283.
43. Nikoo, M., Hadzima-Nyarko, M., Khademi, F., Mohasseb, S. 2017. Estimation of fundamental period of reinforced concrete shear wall buildings using self organization feature map. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 63(2), 237-249.
44. Ozcebe, G., Yucemen, M. S., Aydogan, V., & Yakut, A. H. M. E. T. (2003). Preliminary seismic vulnerability assessment of existing reinforced concrete buildings in Turkey. In Seismic Assessment and Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (pp. 29-42). Springer, Dordrecht.
45. Ozmen, H.B., Inel, M., Meral, E. 2014. Evaluation of the main parameters affecting seismic performance of the RC buildings. Sadhana, 39(2), 437-450.
46. Papanikolaou, V.K., Elnashai, A.S. 2005. Evaluation of conventional and adaptive pushover analysis I: Methodology. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 9(06), 923-941.
47. Pavić, G., Hadzima-Nyarko, M., Bulajić, B. 2020. A contribution to a uhs-based seismic risk assessment in Croatia—a case study for the city of Osijek. Sustainability, 12(5), 1796.
48. Pinto, P.E. Franchin, P. Eurocode 8-Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings. Eurocode 8 Background and Applications, Dissemination of Information for Training. 2011, Lisbon, Portugal.
49. Seismosoft. SeismoStruct 2018– A Computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures,2018, available from http://www.seismosoft. com.
50. Şengezer, S.B. 1999. Mart 1992 Erzincan Depremi Hasar Analizi ve Türkiye’de Deprem Sorunu. YT Ü. Basın Yayın Merkezi.
51. Šipoš, T. K., Hadzima-Nyarko, M. 2017. Rapid seismic risk assessment. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 24, 348-360.
52. Sucuoglu, H., Yazgan, U. 2003. Simple survey procedures for seismic risk assessment in urban building stocks. In Seismic assessment and rehabilitation of existing buildings (pp. 97-118). Springer, Dordrecht.
53. Sucuoğlu, H., Yazgan, U., Yakut, A. 2007. A screening procedure for seismic risk assessment in urban building stocks. Earthquake Spectra, 23(2), 441-458.
54. Tesfamariam, S., Liu, Z. 2010. Earthquake induced damage classification for reinforced concrete buildings. Structural Safety, 32(2), 154-164.
55. Tezcan, S., Yazici, A., Özdemir, Z., Erkal, A. 2007. Zayıf kat - yumuşak kat düzensizliği. Altıncı Ulusal Deprem Mühendisliği Konferansı, 339-350.
56. Tezcan, S.S., Bal, I.E., Gulay, F.G. 2011. P25 scoring method for the collapse vulnerability assessment of R/C buildings. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 34(6), 769-781.
57. TSDC-2018, Turkish Seismic Design Code. Ankara, Turkey.
58. Yakut, A. 2004. Preliminary seismic performance assessment procedure for existing RC buildings. Engineering Structures, 26(10), 1447-1461.
59. Yakut, A., Erberik, M. A., Ilki, A., Sucuoğlu, H., Akkar, S. 2014. Rapid Seismic Assessment Procedures for the Turkish Building Stock. In Seismic Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Structures (pp. 15-35). Springer, Cham.
60. Zuo, Y., Zha, X. 2018. FEM and experimental study on mechanical property of ıntegrated container building. International Journal of Steel Structures, 18(2), 699-718.