Optimal Seismic Design of Code-Compliant RC Moment Frames Through Analytic Hierarchy Process

Öz

Proportion and detailing reinforcement for all structural members to resist internal forces occurring during strong ground motion are among the main seismic design criteria for reinforced concrete (RC) frame systems. Preliminary design is a crucial step in order to reach a proper final design. However, this stage mainly depends on the experience and intuition of the practitioner. The main aim of this study is to apply a multicriteria decision-making tool, namely Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) in selecting the optimal design candidate. A total of 76 optimal designed models out of 3,074 code-compiled buildings were selected based on the considered criteria via AHP procedure. During the analysis, the influence of selected design parameters such as site conditions, strength, ductility, and construction material on the optimal seismic design of these structures are investigated. Findings contribute to the optimization of structural design for both performance and monetary efficiency, while reducing the negative environmental effects.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Seismic design
• RC frame structures
• decision-making
• analytic hierarchy process
• soil class effect

Kaynakça

1. American Society of Civil Engineers, Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784414248.
2. Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation, Turkish Building Earthquake Code, Ankara, Turkey, 2018.
3. M. Sharifi, R. Kolahchi, M.R. Bidgoli, Dynamic analysis of concrete beams reinforced with Tio(2) nano particles under earthquake load, Wind and Structrues 26 (2018) 1–9. https://doi.org/10.12989/was.2018.26.1.001.
4. V. Mohsenian, I. Hajirasouliha, A. Nikkhoo, Multi-level response modification factor estimation for steel moment-resisting frames using endurance-time method, Journal of Earthquake Engineering (2020) 1–21.
5. P. Oggu, K. Gopikrishna, A. Nagariya, Seismic behavior and response reduction factors for concrete moment-resisting frames, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 19 (2021) 5643–5663.
6. Ö. Yurdakul, B. Duran, O. Tunaboyu, Ö. Avşar, Field reconnaissance on seismic performance of RC buildings after the January 24, 2020 Elazığ-Sivrice earthquake, Natural Hazards 105 (2021) 859–887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04340-x.
7. M. Ghandil, F. Behnamfar, Ductility demands of MRF structures on soft soils considering soil-structure interaction, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 92 (2017) 203–214.
8. A. Sharma, R. K Tripathi, G. Bhat, Comparative performance evaluation of RC frame structures using direct displacement-based design method and force-based design method, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering 21 (2020) 381–394.

9. S. Gholizadeh, M. Danesh, C. Gheyratmand, A new Newton metaheuristic algorithm for discrete performance-based design optimization of steel moment frames, Comput Struct 234 (2020) 106250.
10. T.L. Saaty, Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process, Manage Sci 32 (1986) 841–855.
11. M. Unal, S.W. Miller, J.P.S. Chhabra, G.P. Warn, M.A. Yukish, T.W. Simpson, A sequential decision process for the system-level design of structural frames, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 56 (2017) 991–1011.
12. F. Rezazadeh, R. Mirghaderi, A. Hosseini, S. Talatahari, Optimum energy-based design of BRB frames using nonlinear response history analysis, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 57 (2018) 1005–1019.
13. M.J. Esfandiari, G.S. Urgessa, S. Sheikholarefin, S.H.D. Manshadi, Optimum design of 3D reinforced concrete frames using DMPSO algorithm, Advances in Engineering Software 115 (2018) 149–160.
14. H. Leyva, J. Bojórquez, E. Bojórquez, A. Reyes-Salazar, J. Carrillo, F. López-Almansa, Multi-objective seismic design of BRBs-reinforced concrete buildings using genetic algorithms, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 64 (2021) 2097–2112.
15. X. Tu, Z. He, B. Jiang, B. Du, Z. Qi, G. Huang, Strength reserve-based seismic optimization for precast concrete frames with hybrid semi-rigid connections, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 65 (2022) 1–21.
16. A. Kaveh, R. Mahdipour Moghanni, S.M. Javadi, Chaotic optimization algorithm for performance-based optimization design of composite moment frames, Eng Comput 38 (2022) 2729–2741.
17. P.E. Mergos, Surrogate-based optimum design of 3D reinforced concrete building frames to Eurocodes, Developments in the Built Environment 11 (2022) 100079.
18. C. Praxedes, X.-X. Yuan, Robustness-oriented optimal design for reinforced concrete frames considering the large uncertainty of progressive collapse threats, Structural Safety 94 (2022) 102139.
19. I.E. Bal, H. Crowley, R. Pinho, F.G. Gülay, Detailed assessment of structural characteristics of Turkish RC building stock for loss assessment models, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 914–932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.10.005.
20. A. Güllü, G. Karameşe, Effect of building importance factor on seismic performance of rc frame type shopping malls subjected to pulse-like records, in: Structures, Elsevier, 2021: pp. 158–168.
21. American Concrete Institute, Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-19) and commentary, American Concrete Institute, 2019.
22. S. Akkar, T. Azak, T. Can, U. Çeken, D. Tümsa, T.Y. Duman, M. Erdik, S. Ergintav, F.T. Kadirioğlu, D. Kalafat, Evolution of seismic hazard maps in Turkey, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 16 (2018) 3197–3228.
23. MTA General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, https://www.mta.gov.tr/v3.0/hizmetler/yenilenmis-diri-fay-haritalari. , (2024).
24. G. Van Rossum, Python reference manual, Department of Computer Science [CS] (1995).
25. Computers and Structures Inc., ETABS 2019, (2019).
26. P. Bhyan, B. Shrivastava, N. Kumar, Allocating weightage to sustainability criteria’s for performance assessment of group housing developments: Using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, Journal of Building Engineering 65 (2023) 105684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105684.
27. P. Bhyan, B. Shrivastava, N. Kumar, Allocating weightage to sustainability criteria’s for performance assessment of group housing developments: Using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, Journal of Building Engineering 65 (2023) 105684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105684.
28. M.J.N. Priestley, Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering, revisited: The ninth mallet Milne lecture, 2003, IUSS press Pavia, Italy, 2003.
29. P.T. Harker, L.G. Vargas, Reply to “remarks on the analytic hierarchy process” by JS Dyer, Manage Sci 36 (1990) 269–273.
30. Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning, Construction and Installation Unit Prices in Turkiye, 2023.
31. L. Huang, G. Krigsvoll, F. Johansen, Y. Liu, X. Zhang, Carbon emission of global construction sector, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 1906–1916.
32. E. Aghazadeh, H. Yildirim, M. Kuruoglu, A Hybrid Fuzzy MCDM Methodology for Optimal Structural System Selection Compatible with Sustainable Materials in Mass-Housing Projects, Sustainability 14 (2022) 13559.