Advertisement

Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 159–170 | Cite as

Evaluating the inelastic displacement ratios of moment-resisting steel frames designed according to the Egyptian code

  • Hamdy Abou-ElfathEmail author
Article
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

Seismic codes estimate the maximum displacements of building structures under the design-basis earthquakes by amplifying the elastic displacements under the reduced seismic design forces with a deflection amplification factor (DAF). The value of DAF is often estimated as ρ × R, where R is the force reduction factor and ρ is the inelastic displacement ratio that accounts for the inelastic action of the structure according to the definition presented by FEMA P695. The purpose of this study is to estimate the ρ-ratio of moment resisting steel frames (MRSFs) designed according to the Egyptian code. This is achieved by conducting a series of elastic and inelastic time-history analyses by two sets of earthquakes on four MRSFs designed according to the Egyptian code and having 2, 4, 8 and 12 stories. The earthquakes are scaled to produce maximum story drift ratios (MSDRs) of 1.0%, 1.5%, 2.0% and 2.5%. The mean values of the ρ-ratio are calculated based on the displacement responses of the investigated frames. The results obtained in this study indicate that the consideration of ρ for both the roof drift ratios (RDRs) and the MSDRs equal to 1.0 is a reasonable estimation for MRSFs designed according to the Egyptian code.

Keywords

steel frame story drift inelastic analysis earthquake defl ection amplification factor 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ASCE 7-10 (2010), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-10), American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA.Google Scholar
  2. COSMOS (2017), The Consortium of Organizations for Strong-Motion Observation Systems, http: //www. cosmos-eq.org/.Google Scholar
  3. Durucan C and Gümüş M (2018), “Direct Use of Peak Ground Motion Parameters for the Estimation of Inelastic Displacement Ratio of SDOF Systems Subjected to Repeated Far Fault Ground Motions,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 17(4): 771–785.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-018-0475-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ECP-201 (2012), Egyptian Code for Calculating Loads and Forces in Structural Work and Masonry, Housing and Building National Research Center, Ministry of Housing, Utilities and Urban Planning, Cairo.Google Scholar
  5. Euro code 8 (2004), Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions, and Rules for Buildings, EN 1998-1, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  6. FEMA (2009), Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, FEMA P695, Prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  7. Iervolino I, Galasso C, Cosenza E (2010), “REXEL: Computer Aided Record Selection for Code-Based Seismic Structural Analysis,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 8: 339–362. Available at: https://doi.org/www.reluis.it/index.php.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kuşyılmaz A and Topkaya C (2015), “Displacement Amplification Factors for Steel Eccentrically Braced Frames,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 44: 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mahmoudi M and Zaree M (2013), “Evaluating the Displacement Amplification Factors of Concentrically Braced Steel Frames,” International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering, 5(13): 12.Google Scholar
  10. Miranda E and Bertero VV (1994), “Evaluation of Strength Reduction Factors for Earthquake Resistant Design,” Earthquake Spectra, 10(2): 357–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Miranda E (2001), “Estimation of Inelastic Deformation Demands of SDOF Systems,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 127: 1005–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. NBCC (2010), National Building Code of Canada. National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  13. Samimifar M, Oskouei AV and Rofooei FR (2015), “Deflection Amplification Factor for Estimating Seismic Lateral Deformations of RC Frames,” Earthq Eng & Eng Vib, 14: 373–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. SeismoStruct v7.0 (2014), A Computer Program for Static and Dynamic Nonlinear Analysis of Framed structures, available from https://doi.org/www.seismosoft.com.Google Scholar
  15. Uang CM and Maarouf A (1994), “Deflection Amplification Factor for Seismic Design Provisions,” Journal of Structural Engineering, 120(8): 2423–2436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Veletsos AS and Newmark NM (1960), “Effect of Inelastic Behavior on the Response of Simple Systems to Earthquake Motions,” Proc. 2nd World Conf. Earthquake Eng., Tokyo, Japan, 2: 895–912.Google Scholar
  17. Zhai C, Li S, Xie L and Sun Y (2007), “Study on Inelastic Displacement Ratio Spectra for Near-Fault Pulse-Type Ground Motions,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 6(4): 351–355.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-007-0755-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of EngineeringAlexandria UniversityAlexandriaEgypt

Personalised recommendations