Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea (한국지진공학회논문집)

Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea (한국지진공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Significance of Investigating the Seismic Demands of Steel Special Moment Frames in High-Risk Categories

높은 위험도범주 철골 특수 모멘트골조 건물의 지진응답 평가

  • 황성훈 (국립금오공과대학교 건축학부)
  • Received : 2025.02.12
  • Accepted : 2025.02.21
  • Published : 2025.07.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In the United States, seismic design standards are crucial in classifying buildings into Risk Categories I to IV. These categories are based on the buildings' occupancy type and the potential risk they pose to public safety, the protection of human life, and the socioeconomic consequences of structural collapse in the event of an earthquake. As the risk category increases, a higher seismic importance factor and more stringent drift limits are imposed on the respective building. This results in enhanced lateral strength and stiffness of the seismic force-resisting system. This study, which compares the seismic demands of special moment frame buildings assigned to high-risk categories, focusing on static system overstrength, ductility, and collapse risk, provides practical insights for structural engineers and architects. For this purpose, nonlinear static and dynamic analyses are performed to quantify the seismic demands of 18 steel frame buildings assigned to Risk Categories II, III, and IV. The findings indicate that buildings in Risk Category II do not meet the target collapse risk of 1% in 50 years, as specified in ASCE/SEI 7. For buildings in higher risk categories, the equivalent lateral force method for estimating seismic base shear is deemed more effective in ensuring adequate seismic performance.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 연구는 국립금오공과대학교 대학 연구과제비로 지원되었음(2022~2024).

References

  1. ASCE. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE/SEI 7-22. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA; c2022.
  2. KDS 41 17 00. Seismic Building Design Code. Korea Construction Standards Center; c2019.
  3. Hwang SH, Jeon JS, Lee JS. Evaluation of economic losses and collapse safety of steel moment frame buildings designed for risk categories II and IV. Eng Struct. 2019;201:109830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109830
  4. Hwang SH, Mangalathu S, Jeon JS. Quantifying the effects of long-duration earthquake ground motions on the financial losses of steel moment resisting frame buildings of varying design risk category. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 2020;50(5):1451-1468. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3403
  5. Haselton CB, Liel AB, Deierlein GG, Dean BS, Chou JH Seismic collapse safety of reinforced concrete buildings. I: assessment of ductile moment frames. J Struct Eng. 2011;137(4):481-491. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000318
  6. Liel AB, Haselton CB, Deierlein GG. Seismic collapse safety of reinforced concrete buildings. II: comparative assessment of nonductile and ductile moment frames. J Struct Eng. 2011;137(4):492-502. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000275
  7. Elkady A, Lignos G. Effect of gravity framing on the overstrength and collapse capacity of steel frame buildings with perimeter special moment frames. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 2015;44(8):1289-1307. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2519
  8. Hwang SH, Lignos DG. Effect of modeling assumptions on the earthquake-Induced losses and collapse risk of steel-frame buildings with special concentrically braced frames. J Struct Eng. 2017;143(9):04017116. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001851
  9. Araya-Letelier G, Parra PF, Lopez-Garcia D, Garcia-Valdes A, Candia G, Lagos G. Collapse risk assessment of a Chilean dual wall-frame reinforced concrete office building. Eng Struct. 2019;183:770-779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.01.006
  10. Baltzopoulos G, Baraschino R, Iervolino I. On the number of records for structural risk estimation in PBEE. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 2019;48(5):489-506. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3145
  11. ASCE. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE/SEI 7-22. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA; c2022.
  12. Harris JL, Michel JS. Approximate fundamental period for seismic design of steel buildings assigned to high risk categories. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction. 2019;24(4):04019023-1. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000444
  13. ASTM. Standard specification for structural steel shapes, A992/A992M-22, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA; c2022.
  14. USGS. 2008 national seismic hazard model. 2008 - [cited 2025 Jan 18]. Available from: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/hazmaps/
  15. McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL. Nonlinear finite-element analysis software architecture using object composition. J Comput Civ Eng. 2010;24(1):95-107. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000002
  16. PEER/ATC. Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design and Analysis of Tall Buildings. Technical Report No. PEER/ATC 72-1, prepared by Applied Technology Council for the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center, Redwood City, CA; c2010.
  17. Lignos DG, Krawinkler H. Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading. J Struct Eng. 2011;137(11):1291-1302. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000376
  18. Lignos DG, Krawinkler H. Prediction and validation of sidesway collapse of two scale models of a 4-story steel moment frame. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 2011;40(7):807-825. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1061
  19. Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H. Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 2005;34(12):1489-1511. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.495
  20. AISC. Specification for structural steel buildings. ANSI/AISC 360-22, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL; c2022.
  21. Altoontash A. Simulation and damage models for performance assessment of reinforced concrete beam-column Joints [Doctoral Dissertation]. [Stanford, CA]: Stanford University; c2004. 245 p.
  22. Skiadopoulos A, Elkady A, Lignos DG. Proposed panel zone model for seismic design of steel moment-resisting frames. J Struct Eng. 2021;147(4):04021006-1. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002935
  23. Zareian F, Medina RA. A practical method for proper modeling of structural damping in inelastic plane structural systems. Computers & Structures. 2010;88(1-2):45-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2009.08.001
  24. Hwang SH, Lignos DG. Nonmodel-based framework for rapid seismic risk and loss assessment of instrumented steel buildings. Eng Struct. 2018;156:417-432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.11.045
  25. USGS. 2023 national seismic hazard model. 2022 Mar 9 - [cited 2024 Oct 18]. Available from: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/hazmaps/
  26. Elkady A, Lignos DG. Modeling of the composite action in fully restrained beam-to-column connections: implications in the seismic design and collapse capacity of steel special moment frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2014;43(13):1935-1954. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2430
  27. Baker JW, Lee C. An improved algorithm for selecting ground motions to match a conditional spectrum. J Earthq Eng. 2018;22(4):708-723. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1264334
  28. Ancheta TD, Darragh RB, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Silva WJ, Chiou B-SJ, Wooddell KE, Graves RW, Kottke AR, Boore DM, Kishida T, Donahue JL. PEER NGA-West2 database. PEER Report No. 2013/03. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA; c2013.
  29. Baker JW. Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthq Spectra. 2015;31(1):579-599. https://doi.org/10.1193/021113EQS025M