Steel and Composite Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Design parameter dependent force reduction, strength and response modification factors for the special steel moment-resisting frames

  • Received : 2010.05.28
  • Accepted : 2011.06.10
  • Published : 2011.07.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In current ductility-based earthquake-resistant design, the estimation of design forces continues to be carried out with the application of response modification factors on elastic design spectra. It is well-known that the response modification factor (R) takes into account the force reduction, strength, redundancy, and damping of structural systems. The key components of the response modification factor (R) are force reduction ($R_{\mu}$) and strength ($R_S$) factors. However, the response modification and strength factors for structural systems presented in design codes were based on professional judgment and experiences. A numerical study has been accomplished to evaluate force reduction, strength, and response modification factors for special steel moment resisting frames. A total of 72 prototype steel frames were designed based on the recommendations given in the AISC Seismic Provisions and UBC Codes. Number of stories, soil profiles, seismic zone factors, framing systems, and failure mechanisms were considered as the design parameters that influence the response. The effects of the design parameters on force reduction ($R_{\mu}$), strength ($R_S$), and response modification (R) factors were studied. Based on the analysis results, these factors for special steel moment resisting frames are evaluated.

Keywords

References

  1. A. A. Vasilopoulos, N. Bazeos and D. E. Beskos (2008). "Seismic design of irregular space steel frames using advanced methods of analysis", Steel. Comp. Struct., An Int'l Journal, 8(1).
  2. AISC (1994). Load and Resistance Factor Design. American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., 2nd Edition.
  3. AISC (2002). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. American. Ins. Steel. Const., Chicago, Illinois.
  4. Asgarian,B and Shokrgozar, H. R.(2009). "BRBF response modification factor", J. Constr. Steel. Res., 65(2), 270-298.
  5. ATC (1995). Structural Response Modification Factors. ATC Report 19, Redwood City, California.
  6. ATC (1995). A Critical Review of Current Approaches to Earthquake-resistant Design. ATC Report 34. Redwood City, California.
  7. C. O. Kurban and C. Topkaya, (2009). "A numerical study on response modification, overstrength, and displacement amplification factors for steel plate shear wall systems". Earthquake. Eng. Struct. Dyna., 38(4), 497-516. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.866
  8. FEMA 302. (1997). NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures. Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D. C.
  9. FEMA 274. (1997). NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Buildings. Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D. C.
  10. Galindez,N. and Thomson, P. (2007). "Performance of steel moment-frame buildings designed according to the Colombian code NSR-98", Eng. Struct., 29(9), 2274-2281 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.11.006
  11. ICBO. (1997). Uniform Building Code. Inter. Conf. Build. Officials., Whittier California.
  12. ICC. (2000). International Building Code 2000. International Code Council.
  13. Kang, C. K. and Choi, B. J. (2002). "Empirical Estimation of Ductility Factors for Elasto-Plastic SDOF Systems in Alluvium Sites", 2nd International Symposium. Steel. Structures., Seoul, Korea, 533-542.
  14. Kang, C. K. and Choi, B. J. (2004). "Statistical Study and Evaluation of Ductility Factors for Elastic Perfectly Plastic SDOF Systems in Stiff Soils", Inter. J. Steel. Struct., 4, 15-24.
  15. Kang, C. K. and Choi, B. J. (2010). "Empirical Evaluation of Ductility Factors for the Special Steel Moment-Resisting Frames in view of Soil Condition", Struct. Design. Tall. Special. Build., 19(5), 551-572.
  16. Kim, J. K. and Choi, H. H. (2005). "Response modification factors of chevron-braced frames", Eng. Struct., 27(2), 285-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.10.009
  17. Mahmoudi, M and Zaree, M. (2010). "Evaluating response modification factors of concentrically braced steel frames", J. Const. Steel. Res., 66(10), 1196-1204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.04.004
  18. Miranda, E. (1997). "Strength Reduction Factors in Performance-based Design". Proc. EERC-CURE Symposium in Honor of V. V. Bertero, Report No. UCB/EERC 97/05, University of California, Berkeley, California, 125-132.
  19. M. S. Hayalioglu and S. O. Degertekin (2007). "Minimum-weight design of non-linear steel frames using combinatorial optimization algorithms", Steel. Comp. Struct., An Int'l Journal, 7(3).
  20. Nassar, A. A. and Krawinkler, H. (1991). Seismic Demands of SDOF and MDOF Systems. John. A. Blume.Earthq. Eng. Center., Report 95, Stanford University, California.
  21. P. Torkzadeh, J. Salajegheh and E. Salajegheh. (2008). "Optimum design of steel framed structures including determination of the best position of columns", Steel. Comp. Struct., An Int'l Journal, 8(5).
  22. Tsai, K. C. and Li, J. W. (1994). DRAIN 2D +: A General-purpose Computer Program for Static and Dynamic Analyses of Inelastic 2D Structures Supplemented with a Graphic Processor. Report No. CEER/R83 03, National Taiwan University.
  23. Uang, C. M.(1991). "Establishing R(or Rw) and Cd factor for Building Seismic provisions", J. Struct. Eng.,ASCE, 117(1), 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1991)117:1(19)

Cited by

  1. Effect of Span Length on Behavior of MRF Accompanied with CBF and MBF Systems vol.171, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.01.431