Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of the seismic performance factors for steel diagrid structural systems using FEMA P-695 and ATC-19 procedures

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The diagrid structural systems are mainly used for their structural capabilities and architectural aesthetic possibilities which are provided by the unique geometric configurations of these systems. However, the seismic performance factors of these structural systems are not yet explicitly recommended in the existing building codes. In this study, the seismic performance factors (SPFs) of 6- to 24-story steel diagrid structures are determined considering the post-buckling behavior of diagonal members in compression. Also, the effect of change in span length and the diagonal angles on the SPFs of diagrid structures is studied. The ATC-19 coefficient method is used for calculating the SPFs while FEMA P-695 approach is adopted for evaluating the accuracy of the computed factors. Also, the seismic collapse capacity of these structures considering uncertainties in ground motion, modeling, design, and test data is evaluated based on the FEMA P-695 methodology. The OpenSees software is used for modeling and performing the numerical analyses. The obtained results indicate that by increasing the height of diagrid structures, the over-strength, the response modification factor and the median collapse intensity decrease while the ductility factor increases. It is also concluded that the adjusted collapse margin ratios of the diagrid archetypes are larger than the limits suggested by FEMA P-695.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29
Fig. 30
Fig. 31
Fig. 32
Fig. 33

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AISC 341-10 (2010) Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois

  • ANSI/AISC 360-16 (2016) Specification for structural steel buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois

  • Asadi E, Adeli H (2018a) Nonlinear behavior and design of mid- to high-rise diagrid structures in seismic regions. Eng J 55:161–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Asadi E, Adeli H (2018b) Seismic performance factors for low- to mid-rise steel diagrid structural systems. Struct Design Tall Spec Build 27(15):e1505. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asadi E, Li Y, Heo YA (2018) Seismic performance assessment and loss estimation of steel diagrid structures. J Struct Eng 144(10):04018179. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ASCE (2006) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-05, including Supplement No. 1, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia

  • ASCE/SEI 7-16 (2016) Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia

  • ASCE/SEI 41-17 (2017) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia

  • ATC 3-06 (1978) Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for buildings. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California

  • ATC-19 (1995) Structural response modification factors. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California

  • Baker W, Besjak C, Sarkisian M, Lee P, Doo CS (2010) Proposed methodology to determine seismic performance factors for steel diagrid framed systems. CTBUH technical paper, Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, Chicago, Illinois

    Google Scholar 

  • Boake TM (2014) Diagrid structures: systems/connections/details. Birkhäuser, Basel

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • IBM Building (2016) Online. https://www.pinterest.com/pin. Accessed 15 October 2016

  • Cammarano S (2014) Static and dynamic analysis of high-rise buildings. PhD Dissertation, Polytechnic University of Turin. https://doi.org/10.6092/polito/porto/2565549

  • Carpinteri A, Cammarano S (2014) A simplified approach for the dynamic analysis of high-rise structures. Dynamics of Civil Structures 4:509–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connor JJ, Pouangare CC (1991) Simple model for design of framed-tube structures. J Struct Eng 117(12):3623–3644. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)07339445(1991)117:12(3623)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coull A, Bose B (1975) Simplified analysis of framed-tube structures. J Struct Div 101(11):2223–2240

    Google Scholar 

  • Coull A, Subedi NK (1971) Framed-tube structures for high-rise buildings. J Struct Div 97(ST8):2097–2105

    Google Scholar 

  • ETABS (2017) Integrated building design software. Computers and Structures Inc, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • FEMA 450-1 (2004) NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C

  • FEMA 450-2 (2004) NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C

  • FEMA P-695 (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors. ATC-63 report, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C

  • Heshmati M, Aghakouchak AA (2019) Quantification of seismic performance factors of steel diagrid system. Struct Design Tall Spec Build 28(3):e1572. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschmann EW (1965) The hull-core structure-an American design for office buildings. The Structural Engineer 43(11):369–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra LF, Krawinkler H (2005) Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations. Technical report no. 152, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford, California

  • IBC (2006) International building code 2006. International Code Council, Washington, D.C

  • Jani K, Patel PV (2013) Analysis and design of diagrid structural system for high rise steel buildings. Procedia Eng 51:92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.01.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim J, Choi H (2005) Response modification factors of chevron-braced frames. Eng Struct 27(2):285–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.10.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim J, Lee YH (2012) Seismic performance evaluation of diagrid system buildings. Struct Design Tall Spec Build 21(10):736–749. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee D, Shin S, Ju Y (2016) Evaluation of seismic performance factors for steel diagrid structural system design. Earthq Struct 10(4):735–755. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.10.4.735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee J, Kong J, Kim J (2018) Seismic performance evaluation of steel diagrid buildings. Int J Steel Struct 18:1035–1047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-018-0044-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazinani I, Jumaat MZ, Ismail Z, Chao OZ (2014) Comparison of shear lag in structural steel building with framed tube and braced tube. Struct Eng Mech 49(3):297–309. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2014.49.3.297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mele E, Toreno M, Brandonisio G, Luca AD (2014) Diagrid structures for tall buildings: case studies and design considerations. Struct Design Tall Spec Build 23(2):124–145. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menegotto M, Pinto PE (1973) Method of analysis for cyclically loaded R.C. plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under combined normal force and bending. In: IABSE symposium on the resistance and ultimate deformability of structures acted on by well defined repeated loads, Zurich, Switzerland

  • Milana G, Olmati P, Gkoumas K, Bontempi F (2015) Ultimate capacity of diagrid systems for tall buildings in nominal configuration and damaged state. Period Polytech Civil Eng 59(3):381–391. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.7795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miranda E, Bertero VV (1994) Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant design. Earthq Spectra 10(2):357–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moghaddasi BNS, Zhang Y (2013) Seismic analysis of diagrid structural frames with shear-link fuse devices. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 12:463–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-013-0186-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohsenian V, Padashpour S, Hajirasouliha I (2020) Seismic reliability analysis and estimation of multilevel response modification factor for steel diagrid structural systems. J Build Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montuori GM, Mele E, Brandonisio G, Luca AD (2014) Design criteria for diagrid tall buildings: stiffness versus strength. Struct Design Tall Spec Build 23(17):1294–1314. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon KS (2008) Optimal grid geometry of diagrid structures for tall buildings. Archit Sci Rev 51(3):239–251. https://doi.org/10.3763/asre.2008.5129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon KS, Connor JJ, Fernandez JE (2007) Diagrid structural systems for tall buildings: characteristics and methodology for preliminary design. Struct Design Tall Spec Build 16(2):205–230. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassar AA, Osteraas JD, Krawinkler H (1992) Seismic design based on strength and ductility demand. In: Proceedings of the 10th world conference on earthquake engineering, Madrid, Spain

  • NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture (2010) Evaluation of the FEMA P-695 methodology for quantification of building seismic performance factors. National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg, Maryland

  • Newmark NM, Hall WJ (1982) Earthquake spectra and design. EERI monograph series, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California

  • OpenSees (2017) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California. from: http://opensees.berkeley.edu/

  • PERFORM-3D (2007) Nonlinear analysis and performance assessment for 3D structures. Computer & Structures, Inc: Berkeley, California

  • Rahgozar R, Ahmadi AR, Sharifi Y (2010) A simple mathematical model for approximate analysis of tall buildings. Appl Math Model 34(9):2437–2451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2009.11.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramadhan G, Barbosa AR (2014) Improving the seismic performance of diagrid steel structures using friction mass damper. In: Proceedings of the 10th national conference in earthquake engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, Alaska

  • Sadeghi S, Rofooei FR (2018) Quantification of the seismic performance factors for steel diagrid structures. J Constr Steel Res 146:155–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.03.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadeghi S, Rofooei FR (2020) Improving the seismic performance of diagrid structures using buckling restrained braces. J Constr Steel Res 166:105905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.105905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seyedkazemi A, Rofooei FR (2019) Comparison of static pushover analysis and IDA-based probabilistic methods in assessing the seismic performance factors of diagrid structures. Scientia Iranica. https://doi.org/10.24200/sci.2019.21534

  • Seyedkazemi A, Seraji RQ (2019) Evaluation of seismic performance of double-layer steel diagrid systems. Period Polytech Civil Eng 63(4):1183–1192. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.12294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sohrabi-Haghighat M, Ashtari P (2019) Evaluation of seismic performance factors for high-rise steel structures with diagrid system. KSCE J Civ Eng 23:4718–4726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-019-1546-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uriz P, Filippou FC, Mahin SA (2008) Model for cyclic inelastic buckling of steel braces. J Struct Eng 134(4):619–628. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:4(619)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu C, Yang Y (2013) Safety reserve of offshore platform structures: A review. In: Deodatis G, Ellingwood BR, Frangopol DM (eds) Safety, reliability, risk and life-cycle performance of structures and infrastructures. Taylor and Francis Group, London, pp 4913–4918

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang C, Zhao F, Liu Y (2012) Diagrid tube structures composed of straight diagonals with gradually varying angles. Struct Design Tall Spec Build 21(4):283–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.596

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Civil Engineering Department, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

    Fayaz R. Rofooei

  2. Civil Engineering Department, Sharif University of Technology, Kish International Branch, Kish Island, Iran

    Ali Seyedkazemi

Authors
  1. Fayaz R. Rofooei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ali Seyedkazemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fayaz R. Rofooei.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rofooei, F.R., Seyedkazemi, A. Evaluation of the seismic performance factors for steel diagrid structural systems using FEMA P-695 and ATC-19 procedures. Bull Earthquake Eng 18, 4873–4910 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00876-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00876-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation