JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Seismic Performance Evaluation of Steel Intermediate Moment Frames with Various SDCs and Heights
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Seismic Performance Evaluation of Steel Intermediate Moment Frames with Various SDCs and Heights
Han, Sang Whan; Park, Yu-Jin;
 
 Abstract
Steel intermediate moment frames (IMF) have been widely used as a seismic force resisting system in regions of low and moderate seismicity. In this study, the seismic collapse performance of the steel IMFs designed according to current seismic code was evaluated. For this purpose, seventeen steel IMFs were designed according to seismic design codes (ASCE 7-10 and AISC 360-10), and the probability of collapse for these frames are estimated. The probability of collapse of steel IMFs became larger with an increases in the height of frames. And the probability of collapse of steel IMFs also became larger as the level of SDC is higher. Several IMFs designed according to current seismic design codes did not satisfy the acceptance criteria specified in FEMA P-695.
 Keywords
steel intermediate moment frame;seismic design category;height;seismic force resisting system;probability of collapse;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
1.
소형 수직축 풍력발전기의 내진검증 해석,최영휴;홍민기;

한국기계가공학회지, 2016. vol.15. 3, pp.21-27 crossref(new window)
 References
1.
AISC. (2010). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings (ANSI/AISC 341-10), American Institute of Steel Construction Inc. (AISC), Chicago, IL.

2.
AISC. (2010). Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC 360-10), American Institute of Steel Construction Inc. (AISC), Chicago, IL.

3.
ASCE. (2010). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures (ASCE/SEI 7-10), American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA.

4.
ASCE. (2013). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE/SEI 41-13), American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA.

5.
Baker, J. W., & Cornell. C. A. (2006). Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34, 1193-1217.

6.
Venture, S. J., & Guidelines Development Committee (2000). Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame buildings (FEMA-350), Federal Emergency Management Agency.

7.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2009). Quantification of building seismic performance factors (FEMA P-695), SAC Joint Venture and FEMA, Washington, D.C.

8.
Council, B. S. S. (2009). NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for new Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA P-750), Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.

9.
Flores, F. X., Charney, F. A., & Lopez-Garcia, D. (2014). Influence of the Gravity Framing System on the Collapse Performance of Special Steel Moment Frames, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 101, 351-362. crossref(new window)

10.
Gupta, A. & Krawinkler, H. (1999). Seismic demands for performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frame structures(SAC Task 5.4.3), John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Rep. No. 132, Stanford University.

11.
Hamburger, R. O., Krawinkler, H., Malley, J. O., & Adan, S. M. (2009). Seismic design of steel special moment frames: a guide for practicing engineers. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.

12.
Han, S.W. & Wen, Y.K. (1997). Methods of Reliability-Based Seismic Design-I, Equivalent Nonlinear Systems, Journal of Structural Engineering, 123(3), 256-263. crossref(new window)

13.
Han, S. W. & Chopra, A. K. (2006). Approximate incremental dynamic analysis using the modal pushover analysis procedure, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 35(15), 1853-1873. crossref(new window)

14.
Han, S. W., Moon, K. H., Hwang, S. H., & Stojadinovic B. (2015). Seismic Performance Evaluation of Intermediate Moment Frames with Reduced Beam Section and Bolted Web Connections, Earthquake Spectra, 31(2), 895-919. crossref(new window)

15.
Ibarra, L. F. & Krawinler H. (2005). Global collapse of frame structres under seismic excitations, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Rep. No. 152, Dept. Civil Engrg., Stanford University.

16.
Lee, K. H. & Foutch, D. A. (2002). Performance Evaluation of New Steel Frame Buildings for Seismic Loads, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31, 653-670. crossref(new window)

17.
Luco, N. & Cornell, C. A. (2000). Effects of Connection Fractures on SMRF Seismic Drift Demands. Journal of Structural Engineering. 126(1), 127-36. crossref(new window)

18.
Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Scott, M. H., & Fenves, G. L. (2007). OpenSees command language manual, The Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif. from http://opensees.berkeley.edu/index.php.

19.
Vamvatsikos, D. & Cornell, C. A. (2002). Seismic Performance, Capacity and Reliability of Structures as Seen Through Incremental Dynamic Analysis, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Rep. No. 151, Stanford University.

20.
Yun, S. Y., Hamburger, R. O., Cornell, C. A., & Foutch, D. A. (2002). Seismic Performance Evaluation for steel Moment Frames, Journal of Structural Engineering, 128, 534-545. crossref(new window)