Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Seismic Performance Evaluation of Steel Moment-Resisting Frames Designed According to 3rd and 4th Editions of 2800 Seismic Code

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Current design codes have prepared linear analysis methods instead of nonlinear ones in order to reduce time, cost and other factors such as less need of these methods for expert knowledge. In linear analysis method, elastic strength demand of structure is decreased by applying a response modification factor called behavior factor (R) and by considering the design code regulations, structure members will be permitted to experience nonlinear response (in the time of middle-to-severe earthquakes). Because of different assumptions for linear (force-based method that has deficiencies) and nonlinear methods and whereas seismic stability or instability is not merely related to the strength of structure, rather it depends largely on the capability of structure to resist drifts, seismic performance evaluation of structures designed by linear procedure appears to be necessary using standards for evaluation. In this research, seismic performance of steel moment frames once designed based on 3rd edition of 2800-Iranian seismic code and allowable stress design (ASD) method and another time based on new ones, the 4th edition of 2800 seismic code and load and resistance factor design (LRFD) method, are compared with each other through nonlinear pushover and time-history analyses according to ASCE/SEI 41–13. Results showed positive change of design codes procedure with respect to alteration of design method in both types of ductile design, intermediate and special. Since mean of overstrength values and mean of ductility values have increased a little, mean of behavior factor values has become closer to the recommended values of the new seismic code. Also, a small number of structures met total collapse during nonlinear time-history analyses.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Variation of structures height (low rise to high rise) was the different parameter between considered archetypes in every group.

  2. \(\frac{{\Sigma M_{pc}^{*} }}{{\Sigma M_{pb}^{*} }} \ge 1\), \(\Sigma M_{pc}^{*}\) is sum of the projections of the nominal flexural strengths of the columns above and below the joint to the beam centerline with a reduction for the axial force in the column and \(\Sigma M_{pb}^{*}\) is the sum of the projections of the expected flexural strengths of the beams at the plastic hinge locations to the column centerline (ANSI/AISC 341–10 2010a).

  3. Only lower stories corner columns of 15-story structures needed P-M interaction consideration based on Eq. (17).

  4. Calculation of R (strength ratio) Rmax, αe and αP − Δ are described in chapter 3 of ASCE 41. Briefly, \(T_{e} = T_{i} \left( {\frac{{K_{i} }}{{K_{e} }}} \right)^{0.5} ,R_{u} = \frac{{S_{a} }}{{V_{y} /W}}C_{m}\), \(\alpha_{e} = \alpha_{P - \Delta } + \lambda (\alpha_{2} - \alpha_{P - \Delta } )\), \(h = 1 + 0.15\ln (T_{e} )\), \(R_{\max } = \frac{{\Delta_{d} }}{{\Delta_{y} }} + \frac{{|\alpha_{e} |^{ - h} }}{4}\) Cm; effective modal mass participation factor at the fundamental period, λ; near field effect factor.

  5. Appropriate acceleration records have been selected according to 2800 seismic code criteria. Each earthquake component is the component spectrum having larger values.

  6. Ratio of demand value to the allowable one is general meaning of usage ratio. Here, the value under consideration is the end rotation of component.

References

  • American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2014) “Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings”, ASCE/SEI 41–13. Reston, Virginia

    Google Scholar 

  • Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1995) “Structural response modification factors”, Report No. ATC-19, Redwood City, California

  • American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) (2010a) “Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings” AISC 341, Chicago

  • Computers and Structures Inc., (CSI) (2011) “Nonlinear analysis and performance assessment for 3D structures”, PERFORM 3D. California, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2009) “Quantification of building seismic performance factors”, FEMA P695, Washington, D.C

  • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2000) “Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings”, FEMA 356, Washington, D.C

  • Izadinia M, Rahgozar MA, Mohammad Rezaei O (2012) Response modification factor for steel moment-resisting frames by different pushover analysis methods. J Constr Steel Res 79:83–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (2010) “Nonlinear structural analysis for seismic design”, GCR 10–917-5. NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, Gaithersburg, Maryland

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of national building regulations (ONBR) (2008) National building regulations of Iran, Part No.10, Design and construction of steel structures, Tehran

  • Office of national building regulations (ONBR) (2013) National building regulations of Iran, Part No.10, Design and construction of steel structures, Tehran

  • Office of national building regulations (ONBR) (2006) National building regulations of Iran, Part No.6, Design loads for buildings, Tehran

  • Office of national building regulations (ONBR) (2013) National building regulations of Iran, Part No.6, Design loads for buildings, Tehran

  • Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), Strong ground motion database, https://peer.berkeley.edu/

  • Road, Housing and Urban Development Research Center, (BHRC) (2005) Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings, Standard No. 2800, third edition, Tehran

  • Road, Housing and Urban Development Research Center, (BHRC) (2014) Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings, Standard No. 2800, fourth edition, Tehran

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, 8514143131, Iran

    Mohsen Izadinia & Navid Amini

Authors
  1. Mohsen Izadinia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Navid Amini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohsen Izadinia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Izadinia, M., Amini, N. Seismic Performance Evaluation of Steel Moment-Resisting Frames Designed According to 3rd and 4th Editions of 2800 Seismic Code. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng 44 (Suppl 1), 91–103 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-020-00429-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-020-00429-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation