Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of nonlinear modeling approaches used for composite elements on seismic behavior of composite framed buildings

  • Published:
Sādhanā Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aims to assess the effect of nonlinear modeling approaches used for frame elements while appraising the seismic performance of the composite moment resisting frame (CMRF) buildings. To this, the accuracy and efficiency of two representative numerical models (namely, inelastic force-based frame element-distributed plasticity (DP) and inelastic force-based frame element-plastic hinge length (PHL) (lumped-plasticity)) for the columns and beams of CMRFs are evaluated comparatively. The number of stories of the buildings of the case study ranges from 5 to 15 and consists of columns made of concrete-filled steel tube sections and CMRFs designed with composite beams consisting of a combination of solid reinforced concrete slabs and steel beams. The structures are designed by considering high ductility level. Seismostruct software is used for design and performance analysis. During the performance evaluation of the structures, the nonlinear static pushover analysis is utilized as well as the incremental dynamic analysis. While performing the nonlinear static pushover analysis, the lateral loadings with uniform and triangular load distributions are used, and moreover, a series of earthquake ground motions are used in the incremental dynamic analysis. To evaluate the effect of the modeling approaches, the seismic response of the structures is assessed by comparing the load-displacement response, energy consumption, performance limit. Additionally, the behavior factor, dynamic behavior factor, inherent strength and overstrength factors, ductility factor and global yield value are discussed.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Filippou F C and Fenves G L 2004 Methods of Analysis for Earthquake-Resistant Structures, CRC Press, Washington, D.C., 316–395

    Google Scholar 

  2. FEMA 750 2009 Nehrp guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. NEHRP Seism. Des. Tech. Br. 37: 1–444

  3. Coleman J and Spacone E 2002 Localization issues in force-based frame elements. J. Struct. Eng. 127: 1257–1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Almeida J P, Das S and Pinho R 2012 RC Frame analysis with a new damage-following model. 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (15WCEE)

  5. Scott M H and Fenves G L 2006 Plastic hinge integration methods for force-based beam-column elements vol 132

  6. Pecce M, Amadio C, Rossi F and Rinaldin G 2012 Non-linear behaviour of steel-concrete composite moment resisting frames. 15th World Conf. Earthq. Eng.

  7. Ricles J M, Peng S W and Lu L W 2004 Seismic behavior of composite concrete filled steel tube column-wide flange beam moment connections. J. Struct. Eng. 130: 223–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Inel M and Ozmen H B 2006 Effects of plastic hinge properties in nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. Eng. Struct. 28: 1494–1502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Asgarian B, Sadrinezhad A and Alanjari P 2010 Seismic performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frames through incremental dynamic analysis. J. Constr. Steel Res. 66: 178–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang Y H, Nie J G and Cai C S 2013 Numerical modeling on concrete structures and steel-concrete composite frame structures. Compos. Part B Eng. 51: 58–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Iu C K 2016 Nonlinear analysis for the pre- and post-yield behaviour of a composite structure with the refined plastic hinge approach. J. Constr. Steel Res. 119: 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Thai H T and Kim S E 2011 Nonlinear inelastic analysis of concrete-filled steel tubular frames. J. Constr. Steel Res. 67:1797–1805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Park J W and Kim S E 2008 Nonlinear inelastic analysis of steel-concrete composite beam-columns using the stability functions. Struct. Eng. Mech. 30: 763–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sutar S R and Kulkarni P M 2016 Comparative inelastic analysis of RCC and steel-concrete composite frame. IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng. 13: 22–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Spacone E and El-Tawil S 2004 Nonlinear analysis of steel-concrete composite structures: state of the art. J. Struct. Eng. 130: 159–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chiorean C G 2013 A computer method for nonlinear inelastic analysis of 3D composite steel-concrete frame structures. Eng. Struct. 57: 125–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Shanmugam N E and Lakshmi B 2001 State of the art report on steel-concrete composite columns. J. Constr. Steel Res. 57: 1041–1080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Shams M and Saadeghvaziri M A 1997 State of the art of concrete-filled steel tubular columns. ACI Struct. J. 94: 558–571.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Han L H, Yao G H and Tao Z 2007 Performance of concrete-filled thin-walled steel tubes under pure torsion. Thin-Walled Struct. 45: 24–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ellobody E and Young B 2006 Nonlinear analysis of concrete-filled steel SHS and RHS columns. Thin-Walled Struct. 44: 919–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hu H T, Huang C S and Chen Z L 2005 Finite element analysis of CFT columns subjected to an axial compressive force and bending moment in combination. J. Constr. Steel Res. 61: 1692–1712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hu H-T, Huang C-S, Wu M-H and Wu Y-M 2003 Nonlinear analysis of axially loaded concrete-filled tube columns with confinement effect. J. Struct. Eng. 129: 1322–1329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schneider S P 1998 Axially loaded concrete-filled steel tubes. J. Struct. Eng. 124: 1125–1138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ge H B and Usami T 1994 Strength analysis of concrete-filled thin-walled steel box columns. J. Constr. Steel Res. 30: 259–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Tomii M and Kenji S 1979 Elasto-plastic behavior of concrete filled square steel tubular beam-columns. Trans. Archit. Inst. Japan 280: 111–122.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hajjar J F, Schiller P H and Molodan A 1998 A distributed plasticity model for concrete-filled steel tube beam-columns with interlayer slip. Eng. Struct. 20: 663–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Susantha K A S, Ge H and Usami T 2001 Uniaxial stress-strain relationship of concrete confined by various shaped steel tubes. Eng. Struct. 23: 1331–1347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ladjinovic D, Raseta A, Radujkovic A, Folic R and Prokic A 2012 Comparison of structural models for seismic analysis of multi-storey frame buildings. 15th World Conf. Earthq. Eng.

  29. SeismoStruct 2015 A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures. 7.06:

  30. Zendaoui A, Kadid A and Yahiaoui D 2016 Comparison of different numerical models of RC elements for predicting the seismic performance of structures. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 10: 461–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sullivan T J 2013 Highlighting differences between force-based and displacement-based design solutions for reinforced concrete frame structures. Struct. Eng. Int. J. Int. Assoc. Bridg. Struct. Eng. 23: 122–131.

    Google Scholar 

  32. EN 1994-1-1 2004 Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures–Part 1–1: General rules and rules for buildings. Eur. Comm. Stand. 3: 33–38.

    Google Scholar 

  33. EN 1998-1-1 2004 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Eur. Comm. Norm. Brussels 2005

  34. Scott M H and Fenves G L 2006 Plastic hinge integration methods for force-based beam-column elements. J. Struct. Eng. 132: 244–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. EN 1993-1-1 2002 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures-Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. CEN 3

  36. Ferraioli M, Lavino A and Mandara A 2014 Behaviour factor of code-designed steel moment-resisting frames. Int. J. Steel Struct. 14: 243–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. UBC 1997 Uniform Building Code. International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code, Whittier, California

  38. Mander J B, Priestley M J N and Park R 1988 Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J. Struct. Eng. 114: 1804–1826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Martinez-Rueda J E and Elnashai A S 1997 Confined concrete model under cyclic load. Mater. Struct. 30: 139–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Castro J M, Elghazouli A Y and Izzuddin B A 2007 Assessment of effective slab widths in composite beams. J. Constr. Steel Res. 63: 1317–1327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Calabrese A, Almeida J P and Pinho R 2010 Numerical issues in distributed inelasticity modeling of RC frame elements for seismic analysis. J. Earthq. Eng. 14: 38–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Chen S and Jia Y 2008 Required and available moment redistribution of continuous steel-concrete composite beams. J. Constr. Steel Res. 64: 167–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kemp A R and Nethercot D A 2001 Required and available rotations in continuous composite beams with semi-rigid connections. J. Constr. Steel Res. 57: 375–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Baig M N, Fan J and Nie J 2006 Strength of concrete filled steel tubular columns. Tsinghua Sci. Technol. 11: 657–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Paulay T and Priestley M J N 2008 Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry structures vol 12

  46. Perea T 2010 Analytical and Experimental Study on Slender Concrete-Filled Steel Tube Columns and Beam-Columns. PhD Thesis. Georgia Institute of Technology, USA. 1–668

  47. Della Corte G, De Matteis G and Landolfo R 2000 Influence of connection modelling on seismic response of moment resisting steel frames. Moment Resist. Connect. steel Fram. Seism. areas – Des. Reliab. 485–512

  48. Nogueiro P, Da Silva L S, Bento R and Simões R 2009 Calibration of model parameters for the cyclic response of end-plate beam-to-column steel-concrete composite joints. Steel Compos. Struct. 9: 39–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Simoes R, da Silva L S and Cruz P J S 2001 Cyclic behaviour of end-plate beam-to-column composite joints. Steel Compos. Struct. 1: 355–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Fazaulnizam M and Shamsudin B 2014 Analytical tool for modeling the cyclic behaviour of extended end-plate. PhD Thesis. Universidade de Coimbra, Portugal.

  51. Srinivasan C N and Schneider S P 1999 Axially loaded concrete-filled steel tubes. J. Struct. Eng. 125: 1202–1206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Tomii M, Yoshimura K and Morishita Y 1977 Experimental studies on concrete-filled steel tubular stub columns under concentric loading. International Colloquium on Stability of Structures Under Static and Dynamic Loads pp 718–41

  53. Han L H, Da Wang W and Zhao X L 2008 Behaviour of steel beam to concrete-filled SHS column frames: Finite element model and verifications. Eng. Struct. 30: 1647–1658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Da Wang W, Han L H and Zhao X L 2009 Analytical behavior of frames with steel beams to concrete-filled steel tubular column. J. Constr. Steel Res. 65: 497–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Elghazouli A Y Y, Castro J M M and Izzuddin B A A 2008 Seismic performance of composite moment-resisting frames. Eng. Struct. 30(7): 1802–1819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Vamvatsikos D 2005 Seismic performance, capacity and reliability of structures as seen through incremental dynamic analysis

  57. Vamvatsikos D and Cornell C A 2004 Applied incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq. Spectra 20: 523–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. PEER 2014 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). Pacific Earthq. Eng. Res. Cent.

  59. Seismosoft 2013 Seismomatch v2. 1—A computer program for spectrum matching of earthquake records

  60. Vamvatsikos D and Cornell C A 2005 Direct estimation of the seismic demand and capacity of MDOF systems through incremental dynamic analysis of an SDOF approximation. J. Struct. Eng. 131: 589–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Castro J M, Elghazouli A Y and Izzuddin B A 2008 Performance assessment of composite moment-resisting frames. 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

  62. Thermou G E, Elnashai A S, Plumier A and Done C 2004 Seismic design and performance of composite frames. J. Constr. Steel Res. 60: 31–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Han S W and Chopra A K 2006 Approximate incremental dynamic analysis using the modal pushover analysis procedure. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 35: 1853–1873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Etli S and Güneyisi E M 2020 Seismic performance evaluation of regular and irregular composite moment resisting frames. Lat. Am. J. Solids Struct. 17: 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Etli S and Güneyisi E M 2021 Assessment of seismic behavior factor of code-designed steel-concrete composite building. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 46: 4271–4292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Yahmi D, Branci T, Bouchaïr A and Fournely E 2017 Evaluation of behaviour factors of steel moment-resisting frames using standard pushover method. Procedia Eng. 199: 397–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Elnashai A S and Di Sarno L 2015 Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering: From Source to Fragility, 2nd Edition (John Wiley & Sons) USA

  68. Park R 1988 Ductility evaluation from laboratory and analytical testing. Proceedings of the 9th world conference on earthquake engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan vol 8 pp 605–16

  69. Mwafy A M and Elnashai A S 2001 Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings. Eng. Struct. 23: 407–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Jain S K and Navin R 2002 Seismic overstrength in reinforced concrete frames. J. Struct. Eng. 121: 580–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Mwafy A M 2001 Seismic performance of code-designed RC buildings (University of London)

  72. Whittaker A, Hart G and Rojahn C 1999 Seismic response modification factors. J. Struct. Eng. 125: 438–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Elnashai A S and Mwafy A M 2002 Overstrength and force reduction factors of multistorey reinforced-concrete buildings. Struct. Des. Tall Build. 11: 329–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Mitchell D and Paultre P 2010 Ductility and overstrength in seismic design of reinforced concrete structures. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 21: 1049–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Park R 1996 Explicit incorporation of element and structure overstrength in the design process. Proc. 11th WCEE. IAEE, Acapulco, Mex. Pap.

  76. Victor G and Federico M M 2002 Ductility of seismic resistant steel structures. Spon Press. CRC Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  77. Miranda E and Bertero V V 1994 Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant design. Earthq. Spectra 10: 357–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Zahrah H 1984 Earthquake energy absorption in SDOF structures. J. Struct. Eng. 110: 1757–1772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Newmark N and Hall W 1982 Earthquake spectra and design. EERI Monogr. 103

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Munzur University, 62000, Tunceli, Turkey

    Serkan Etlİ

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, Gaziantep University, 27310, Gaziantep, Turkey

    Esra Mete Güneyİsİ

Authors
  1. Serkan Etlİ
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Esra Mete Güneyİsİ
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Serkan Etlİ.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Etlİ, S., Güneyİsİ, E.M. Effect of nonlinear modeling approaches used for composite elements on seismic behavior of composite framed buildings. Sādhanā 47, 91 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-022-01871-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-022-01871-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation