Abstract
This study presents static and dynamic assessments on the steel structures. Pushover analysis (POA) and incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) were run on moment resisting steel frames. The IDA study involves successive scaling and application of each accelerogram followed by assessment of the maximum response. Steel frames are subjected to nonlinear inelastic time history analysis for 14 different scaled ground motions, 7 near field and 7 far field. The results obtained from POA on the 3, 6 and 9 storey steel frames show consistent results for both uniform and triangular lateral loading. Uniform loading shows that the steel frames exhibits higher base shear than the triangular loading. The IDA results show that the far field ground motions has caused all steel frame design within the research to collapse while near field ground motion only caused some steel frames to collapse. The POA can be used to estimate the performance-based-seismic-design (PBSD) limit states of the steel frames with consistency while the IDA seems to be quite inconsistent. It is concluded that the POA can be consistently used to estimate the limit states of steel frames while limit state estimations from IDA requires carefully selected ground motions with considerations of important parameters.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hussein A F, Ghazali M Z. The Role of Steel Technology Centre in the Advancement of Steel Construction in Malaysia. In: Chan S L, Teng J G, eds. Advances in Steel Structures ICASS’ 96: 2-Volume Set. Elsevier Science, 1996, 1230
Balendra T, Li Z. Seismic Hazard of Singapore and Malaysia. EJSE Special Issue: Earthquake Engineering in the low and moderate seismic regions of Southeast Asia and Austrialia, 2008, 57–63
Rahman A, Ahmed A A M, Mamun M R. Drift Analysis due to earthquake load on tall structures. Journal of Civil Engineering and Construction Technology, 2012, 4: 154–158
FIB. Displacement-based Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings: State-of-art Report. International Federation for Structural Concrete (FIB), 2003, 25: 192
Krawinkler H. Pushover analysis: Why, how, when, and when not to use it. In: Proceedings of the 65th Annual Structural Engineers Association of California Convention. Maui, Hawaii, 1996
FEMA-273. NEHRP Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Washington DC: Building Seismic Safety Council, 1997
Naeim F, Bhatia H, Lobo R M. Performance Based Seismic Engineering, in Seismic Design Handbook. 2001, 759–765
FEMA-356. Prestandard and commentry for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2000
BSI. Eurocode 3 (EC3): Design of Steel Structures in Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. London, 2005
BSI. Eurocode 8 (EC8): Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures, in Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Building. London, 2004
Elghazouli A Y, Castro J M. Design of Steel Structures, in Seismic Design of Buildings to Eurocode 8. Elghazouli AY, ed. Spon Press, 2009
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nazri, F.M., Ken, P.Y. Seismic performance of moment resisting steel frame subjected to earthquake excitations. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 8, 19–25 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-014-0240-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-014-0240-3