Influence of Gravity Framing on the Collapse Probability of Steel Buildings with Special Moment Frames

Abstract

This paper presents the influence of gravity framing on the collapse risk of steel frame buildings with perimeter special moment frames (SMFs) designed in Turkey. For this, four- and eight-story buildings have been designed considering the related current specifications and codes. Header end-plate connections are used for the beam-to-column joints of the gravity frame system. A nonlinear analytical model that simulates the hysteretic behavior of header end-plate connections is calibrated with past experimental data. Nonlinear static pushover analysis (NSPA) and nonlinear response history analyses (NRHAs) were implemented for both four-story and eight-story SMFs with and without the gravity framing to quantify their collapse performance and monitor the system-level seismic response of the building through collapse. The advantage of presence of the gravity framing is investigated and differences in structural responses between the models are also examined. When the models were excited by different ground motions, median responses of the detailed models showed an increase in lateral force carrying capacity and a decrease in first-story drift demand, compared to the nonlinear static pushover analyses results. Furthermore, the results demonstrate that gravity frames in a structure profoundly decrease the possibility of collapse.

Keywords

• Steel structures
• Gravity Framing
• Nonlinear dynamic analysis
• Collapse Probability

References

1. Leon, R., Composite connections, Structural Engineering Handbook, CRC Press LLC, 1999.
2. Huang, Z., and Foutch, D.A., Effect of hysteresis type on drift limit for global collapse of moment frame structures under seismic loads, Journal Earthquake Engineering, 13(7), 939-964, 2009.
3. Lignos, D., and Krawinkler, H., Sidesway Collapse of Deteriorating Structural systems under Seismic Excitations, Report No. TB 172, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, CA, 2012.
4. Gupta, A., and Krawinkler, H., Behavior of ductile SMRFs at various seismic hazard levels, Journal of Structural Engineering, 126(1), 98–107, 2000.
5. Ramos, M.D., Mosqueda, G. and Hashemi, M.J., Large-scale hybrid simulation of a steel moment frame building structure through collapse, Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(1), 04015086, 2016.
6. MacRae, G.A., Kimura, Y. and Roeder, C., Effect of column stiffness on braced frame seismic behavior, Journal of Structural Engineering, 130(3), 381-391, 2004.
7. Ji, X., Kato, M., Wang, T., Hitaka, T. and Nakashima, M., Effect of gravity columns on mitigation of drift concentration for braced frames, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 65(12), 2148-2156, 2009.
8. Elkady, A. and Lignos, D. G., Effect of gravity framing on the overstrength and collapse capacity of steel frame buildings with perimeter special moment frames, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 44, 1289-1307, 2015.

9. Lee, K. and Foutch, D. A., Performance evaluation of new steel frame buildings for seismic loads, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31, 653-670, 2002.
10. Flores, F.X., Charney, F.A. and Lopez-Garcia, D., Influence of the gravity framing system on the collapse performance of special steel moment frames, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 101, 351-362, 2014.
11. Foutch, D. A., and Yun, S., Modeling of steel moment frames for seismic loads, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 58, 529-564, 2002.
12. Astaneh-Asl, A., Modjtahedi, D., McMullin, K., Shen, J. and D’Amore, E., Stability of damaged steel moment frames in Los Angeles, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 20, 443-446, 1998.
13. Sizemore, J., Davaran, A., Fahnestock, L., Tremblay, R. and Hines, E., Seismic behaviour of low-ductility concentrically-braced frames, Structures Congress, ASCE Library, 2014.
14. Karasu, A. and Vatansever, C., Experimental Study on the Behavior of Header End - Plate Connections under Cyclic Loading, Technical Journal of Turkish Chamber of civil engineers, 32(6), 2021.
15. Turkish Seismic Code for Buildings 2018, Specifications for Design of Buildings under Earthquake Action, Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency, Ankara.
16. Chisari, C., Francavilla, A.B., Latour, M., Piluso, V., Amadio, C. and Rizzano, G., Critical issues in parameter calibration of cyclic models for steel members, Engineering Structures, 132, 123-138,2017.
17. OpenSees, Version 2.0, User Command-Language Manual, 2009.
18. Turkish code for design and construction of steel structures 2016, Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation, Ankara, Turkey.
19. Krawinkler, H., The state-of-the-art report on system performance of moment resisting steel frames subjected to earthquake ground shaking, FEMA 355c, Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2000.
20. CSI. SAP2000 v18 integrated finite element analysis and design of structures, Berkeley: Computers and Structures; 2016.
21. Ibarra, L.F., Medina, R.A., and Krawinkler, H., Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration, Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamic, 34(12), 1489-1511, 2005.
22. Lignos, D. G. and Krawinkler, H., 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, 2011.
23. Lignos, D. G., Hartloper, R.H., Elkady, A., Deierlein, G.G. and Hamburger, R., Proposed Updates to the ASCE 41 Nonlinear modeling parameters for wide-flange steel columns in support of performance-based seismic engineering, Journal of Structural Engineering, 145 (9), 04019083, 2019.
24. Gupta, A. and Krawinkler, H., Seismic demands for the performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frame structures, Report No. 132, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, CA, 1999.
25. Lignos, D.G., Putman, C., Krawinkler, H., Seismic assessment of steel moment frames using simplified nonlinear models, Computational Methods in Earthquake Engineering, 30(0), 91–109, 2013.
26. FEMA, Quantification of building seismic performance factors, Report FEMA-P695, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2009.
27. Zareian, F., Medina, R.A., A practical method for proper modeling of structural damping in inelastic plane structural systems, Computers & Structures, 88(1), 45–53, 2010.
28. Chopra, A.K., Dynamics of structures theory and applications to earthquake engineering, Fourth edition, Prentice Hall, U.S.A, 2013.
29. Lignos, D.G., Putman, C., Krawinkler, H., Application of simplified analysis procedures for performance-based earthquake evaluation of steel special moment frames, Earthquake Spectra, 31(4), 2015.
30. ASCE/SEI 7-16, Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, Reston, VA: ASCE, 2017.
31. Vamvatsikos, D., Cornell, C.A., Incremental dynamic analysis, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 31(3), 491–514, 2002.