Evaluating the Adequacy of Ductility Requirements of Seismic Design Codes

Fathi, Reza; Kia, Mehdi; Qorbani Fouladi, Meisam

doi:10.61186/NMCE.2312.1043

Evaluating the Adequacy of Ductility Requirements of Seismic Design Codes

Document Type : Research

Authors

Reza Fathi ¹

Mehdi Kia ²

Meisam Qorbani Fouladi ³

¹ BSc Student in civil Engineering, University of Science and Technology of Mazandaran, Behshahr, Iran

² Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Science and Technology of Mazandaran, Behshahr, Iran

³ Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Science and Technology of Mazandaran, Behshahr, Iran.

10.61186/NMCE.2312.1043

Abstract

Seismic design philosophy is based on this principal that destructive earthquakes have a low probability of occurrence, and it is not economical to design structures to perform elastically during such rare events. Therefore structures are designed and constructed with much less strength than their elastic demand imposed by destructive earthquakes. This imposes nonlinear deformations and consequently damages to structures. However, preventing collapse necessitates that structures must be able to undergo such a large deformations without any significant reduction in strength and stiffness. This characteristic is referred as a ductility capacity of structures. Since ductility capacity, in design procedure proposed by seismic codes, is implicitly addressed by satisfying some prescriptive requirements, the fundamental question is: do these provisions ensure adequate ductility capacity to avoid collapse during a destructive earthquake? Answer to this question makes the cornerstone of our study. To this end, the present study examines three intermediate steel moment frames of 4, 5, and 7 stories designed according to Iran's national building regulations. Next, the lateral yield strength and ductility capacity of the designed buildings are estimated by performing a nonlinear static analysis. By applying a set of destructive earthquakes and developing corresponding acceleration response spectrum, the maximum elastic strength demand is estimated. The force-reduction factor defined as a ratio of the maximum elastic strength demand to the actual lateral yield strength of the structures is then computed for each of the selected earthquakes. According to the computed force-reduction factors, ductility demands imposed by each of the selected destructive...

Keywords

Ductility Reduction Factor

Nonlinear Static Analysis

Prescriptive Requirements

Ductility Capacity

Seismic Design Codes

Subjects

Structural Engineering

[1] Newmark, N. M., and Hall, W. J. 1982. Earthquake Spectra and Design. Berkeley, CA: EERI.

[2] Porcu, M. C., Vielma Pérez, J. C., Pais, G., Osorio Bravo, D., & Vielma Quintero, J. C. (2022). Some issues in the seismic assessment of shear-wall buildings through code-compliant dynamic analyses. Buildings, 12(5), 694.

[3] Rahnama, M., & Krawinkler, H. (1994). Effects of P-delta and Strength Deterioration on SDOF Strength Demands. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Vienna, Austria.

[4] Lee, L. H., Han, S. W., & Oh, Y. H. (1999). Determination of ductility factor considering different hysteretic models. Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics, 28(9), 957-977.

[5] Fajfar, P., Vidic, T., & Fischinger, M. (1989). Seismic demand in medium‐and long‐period structures. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 18(8), 1133-1144.

[6] Rahnama-Hazaveh, M. (1993). Effects of soft soil and hysteresis model on seismic demands (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University).

[7] Fischinger, M., Fajfar, P., & Vidic, T. (1994). Factors contributing to the response reduction.

[8] Vidic, T., Fajfar, P., & Fischinger, M. (1994). Consistent inelastic design spectra: strength and displacement. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 23(5), 507-521.

[9] Nassar, A. A., Osteraas, J. D., & Krawinkler, H. (1992, July). Seismic design based on strength and ductility demands. In 10th world conference on earthquake engineering (Vol. 10, pp. 5861-5866).

[10] Aliakbari, F., & Shariatmadar, H. (2019). Seismic response modification factor for steel slit panel-frames. Engineering Structures, 181, 427-436.

[11] Fanaie, N., & Shamlou, S. O. (2015). Response modification factor of mixed structures. Steel and Composite Structures, 19(6), 1449-1466.

[12] Güner, T., & Topkaya, C. (2020). Performance comparison of BRBFs designed using different response modification factors. Engineering Structures, 225, 111281.

[13] Asgarian, B., & Shokrgozar, H. R. (2009). BRBF response modification factor. Journal of constructional steel research, 65(2), 290-298.

[14] Sohrabi-Haghighat, M., & Ashtari, P. (2019). Evaluation of seismic performance factors for high-rise steel structures with diagrid system. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 23(11), 4718-4726.

[15] Mohsenian, V., Padashpour, S., & Hajirasouliha, I. (2020). Seismic reliability analysis and estimation of multilevel response modification factor for steel diagrid structural systems. Journal of Building Engineering, 29, 101168.

[16] Kim, J., & Choi, H. (2005). Response modification factors of chevron-braced frames. Engineering structures, 27(2), 285-300.

[17] Mohsenian, V., Hajirasouliha, I., & Nikkhoo, A. (2022). Multi-level response modification factor estimation for steel moment-resisting frames using endurance-time method. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 26(9), 4812-4832.

[18] Abdi, H., Hejazi, F., Saifulnaz, R., Karim, I. A., & Jaafar, M. S. (2015). Response modification factor for steel structure equipped with viscous damper device. International Journal of Steel Structures, 15, 605-622.

[19] Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Scott, M. H., & Fenves, G. L. (2006). OpenSees command language manual. Pacific earthquake engineering research (PEER) center, 264(1), 137-158.

[20] Lignos, D. G., & Krawinkler, H. (2012). Sideway Collapse of deteriorating structural system under seismic excitations”, Report 177 (Doctoral dissertation, Ph. D. diss., John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University).

[21] Zareian, F. (2006). Simplified performance-based earthquake engineering. Stanford University.

[22] Applied Technology Council. (2009). Quantification of building seismic performance factors. US Department of Homeland Security, FEMA.

[23] Applied Technology Council, ATC-19, 1995, Structural Response Modification Factors, Redwood City, California.

[24] Paulay, T., & Priestley, M. N. (1992). Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings (Vol. 768). New York: Wiley.

[25] ATC, S. (1996). Evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, Rep. ATC-40, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.

[26] Prestandard, F. E. M. A. (2000). Commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA356). Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 7(2).

[27] Riddell, R., Hidalgo, P., & Cruz, E. (1989). Response modification factors for earthquake resistant design of short period buildings. Earthquake spectra, 5(3), 571-590.

[28] Nassar, A.A, and Krawinkler, H., “Seismic Demands for SDOF and MDOF systems,” Report No. 95, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1991

[29] Miranda, E. (1993). Site-dependent strength-reduction factors. Journal of Structural Engineering, 119(12), 3503-3519.

[30] Miranda, E. (1997, January). Strength reduction factors in performance-based design. In Proceedings of EERC-CUREe Symposium, Berkeley, CA.