Advertisement

Assessment of Structure-Specific Intensity Measures for the Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis of Steel Moment Frames

  • Mohammad Javanmard
  • Aliakbar Yahyaabadi
Research Article - Civil Engineering
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

Given the inherent uncertainty in seismic response, seismic performance assessment of structures should be conducted within a probabilistic framework. One of the most efficient probabilistic approaches is the IM-based probabilistic seismic demand analysis (PSDA). In this method, an intermediate parameter, which is known as the intensity measure (IM), is used to decouple the seismological and structural uncertainties. Two intensity measures of \(\mathrm{IM}_\mathrm{oc}\) and \((S_\mathrm{a})_\mathrm{rms}\) were introduced for near-fault pulse-like records in previous research. These IMs are defined based on the optimal combination of spectral displacements and root-mean-square of spectral accelerations at effective periods, respectively. In this research, to consider the efficiency of these IMs under a set of 90 records that contains both near-fault and ordinary ground motion records, we conducted the PSDA for five moment-resisting frames with the number of stories ranges from 3 to 15. Results show that \(\mathrm{IM}_\mathrm{oc}\) and the advanced intensity measure of \( \mathrm{IM}_{{1}\mathrm{I} \& 2\mathrm{E}}\) exhibit the highest correlation with the expected damage for the most frames, especially moderate and relatively long-period ones. \( \mathrm{IM}_{{1}\mathrm{I} \& 2\mathrm{E}}\) is defined based on the inelastic spectral displacement with the higher-mode modification. In addition, comparison of the drift hazard curve of different frames shows that by increasing the structural height, the amount of drift hazard will decrease. However, comparing to other cases, the reduction rate of drift hazard along with increasing the number of stories from three to six is significant.

Keywords

Probabilistic analysis Seismic demand Intensity measure Moment-resisting frames Efficiency Drift hazard 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Tothong, P.; Luco, N.: Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 36(13), 1837–1860 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vamvatsikos, D.; Fragiadakis, M.: Incremental dynamic analysis for estimating seismic performance sensitivity and uncertainty. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 39(2), 141–163 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benjamin, J.; Cornell, C.: Probability, Statistics and Decision for Civil Engineers. McGraw-Hill, New York (1970)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Luco, N.; Mai, P.; Cornell, C.; Beroza, G.: Probabilistic seismic demand analysis, SMRF connection fractures, and near-source effects. Paper presented at the Seventh U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Boston, MA, 21–25 July 2002Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shome, N.; Cornell, C.A.; Bazzurro, P.; Carballo, J.E.: Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses. Earthq. Spectra 14(3), 469–500 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luco, N.; Cornell, C.A.: Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthq. Spectra 23(2), 357–392 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yahyaabadi, A.; Theranizadeh, M.: New scalar intensity measure for near-fault ground motions based on the optimal combination of spectral responses. Sci. Iran. 18(6), 1149–1158 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Faggella, M.; Barbosa, A.R.; Conte, J.P.; Spacone, E.; Restrepo, J.I.: Probabilistic seismic response analysis of a 3-D reinforced concrete building. Struct. Saf. 44, 11–27 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pejovic, J.R.; Serdar, N.N.; Pejovic, R.R.: Optimal intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand models of RC high-rise buildings. Earthq. Struct. 13(3), 221–231 (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yahyaabadi, A.; Tehranizadeh, M.: Introducing a new scaling method for near-fault ground motions based on the root-mean-square of spectral responses. In: Papadrakakis, M.; Fragiadakis, M.; V. Plevris (eds.) III ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Biasio, M.; Grange, S.; Dufour, F.; Allain, F.; Petre-Lazar, I.: A simple and efficient intensity measure to account for nonlinear structural behavior. Earthq. Spectra 30(4), 1403–1426 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kostinakis, K.; Fontara, I.-K.; Athanatopoulou, A.M.: Scalar structure-specific ground motion intensity measures for assessing the seismic performance of structures: a review. J. Earthq. Eng. 22(4), 1–36 (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Iran Strong Motion Network Data Bank. http://www.bhrc.ac.ir. Accessed Sept 2016
  14. 14.
    PEER ground motion database. http://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/. Accessed Sept 2016
  15. 15.
    ASCE: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE, Reston (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Somerville, P.G.: Characterizing near fault ground motion for the design and evaluation of bridges. In: Third National Conference and Workshop on Bridges and Highways, Portland, OR (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Medina, R.A.; Krawinkler, H.: Seismic Demands for Nondeteriorating Frame Structures and Their Dependence on Ground Motions. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gupta, A.; Krawinkler, H.: Seismic Demands for the Performance Evaluation of Steel Moment Resisting Frame Structures. Stanford University, Stanford (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ibarra, L.F.; Krawinkler, H.: Global Collapse of Frame Structures Under Seismic Excitations. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zareian, F.; Krawinkler, H.: Simplified Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering. Stanford University, Stanford (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ibarra, L.F.; Medina, R.A.; Krawinkler, H.: Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 34(12), 1489–1511 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Adam, C.; Krawinkler, H.: Large displacement effects on seismically excited elastic–plastic frame structures. Asian J. Civ. Eng. Build. Hous. 5(1–2), 41–55 (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schellenberg, A.; Yang, T.T.Y.; Kohama, E.: Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yahyaabadi, A.; Tehranizadeh, M.: Development of an improved intensity measure in order to reduce the variability in seismic demands under near-fault ground motions. J. Earthq. Tsunami 6(02), 1250012 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yahyaabadi, A.; Nodehi, F.: Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of Bojnord region by considering near-fault effects. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Earthquake and Structures, Kerman, IranGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zare, M.; Sabzali, S.: Spectral attenuation of strong motions in Iran. In: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium of the Effects of Surface Geology on Seismic Motion, vol. 146, Grenoble, France (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Baker, J.W.; Cornell, C.A.: Correlation of response spectral values for multicomponent ground motions. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96(1), 215–227 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of BojnordBojnordIran

Personalised recommendations