Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Steel ordinary moment frames (OMF) are seismic force-resisting systems that can be used in buildings. In current seismic design and detailing provisions, such as the American Society of Civil Engineers ASCE/SEI 7-10 (2010), American Institute of Steel Construction ANSI/AISC 341-10 (2010), and ANSI/AISC 358-10 (2010), less stringent design and detailing requirements are specified for steel OMFs compared with those for steel special- and intermediate-moment frames. The strong-column weak-beam (SC/WB) requirement is not enforced for steel OMF connections. In the present study, the seismic performance evaluation is conducted for steel OMFs designed according to current seismic design and detailing provisions considering different combinations of gravity, seismic, and wind loads, as well as wind drift limits. Based on the results of seismic performance evaluation, permissible structural heights for steel OMFs are also proposed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC),

2010. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings , ANSI/ANSIAISC 341-10 , Chicago, IL.

American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC),

2010. Prequalified connections for special and intermediate steel moment frames for seismic applications , ANSI/AISC 358-10 , Chicago, IL.

American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC),

2010. Specification for structural steel buildings , ANSI/AISC 360-10 , Chicago, IL.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE),

2010. Minimum design loads for building and other structures , ASCE/SEI 7-10 , Reston, VA.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE),

2013. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings , ASCE/SEI 41-13 , Reston, VA.

Elkady

, Lignos

D. G.

2014. Modeling of the composite action in fully restrained beam-to-column connections: implications in the seismic design and collapse capacity of steel special moment frames, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 43, , 1935– 1954.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),

2009. Quantification of building seismic performance factors , FEMA P-695 , Washington D.C.

Flores

F. X.

, Charney

F. A.

, Lopez-Garcia

2014. Influence of the gravity framing system on the collapse performance of special steel moment frames, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 101, , 351– 362.

Gupta

, Krawinkler

1999. Seismic Demands for Performance Evaluation of Steel Moment Resisting Frame Structures , Rep. No. 132, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

10.

Han

S. W.

, Kwon

G. U.

, Moon

K. H.

2007. Cyclic behavior of post-Northridge WUF-B connections, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63, , 365– 374.

11.

Han

S. W.

, Kim

T. O.

, Kim

D. H.

, Baek

S. J.

2017. Seismic collapse performance of special moment steel frames with torsional irregularities, Engineering Structures 141, , 482– 494.

12.

Ibarra

L. F.

, Medina

R. A.

, Krawinkler

2005. Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 34, , 1489– 1511.

13.

Krawinkler

1978. Shear design of steel frame joints, AISC Engineering Journal 15, , 82– 91.

14.

Lignos

D. G.

, Krawinkler

2011. Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 137, , 1291– 1302.

15.

MacRae

G. A.

, Kimura

, Roeder

2004. Effect of column stiffness on braced frame seismic behavior, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 130, , 381– 391.

16.

McKenna

1997. Object-Oriented Finite Element Analysis: Frameworks for Analysis Algorithms and Parallel Computing, Ph.D. Thesis, University of California at Berkeley.

17.

NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture,

2010. Evaluation of the FEMA P-695 Methodology for Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors , NIST GCR 10-917-8 , Gaithersburg, MD.

18.

Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center/Applied Technology (PEER/ATC),

2010. Modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings , PEER/ATC 72-1 , Redwood City, CA.

19.

Ricles

J. M.

, Mao

, Lu

L. W.

, Fisher

J. W.

2002. Inelastic cyclic testing of welded unreinforced moment connections, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 123, , 429– 440.

20.

SEAOC Seismology Committee, ( 2009). Seismic force-resisting systems, Part I-seismic design factors, Structure Magazine , 27– 29.

21.

Stojadinovic

, Goel

S. C.

, Lee

K. H.

, Margarian

A. G.

, Choi

J. H.

2000. Parametric tests on unreinforced steel moment connections, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 126, , 40– 49.

22.

Vamvatsikos

, Cornell

C. A.

2002. Incremental dynamic analysis, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 31, , 491– 514.

23.

Zareian

, Lignos

, Krawinkler

2010. Evaluation of seismic collapse performance of steel special moment resisting frames using FEMA P695 (ATC-63) methodology, Proceedings of the ASCE-SEI structures congress , May 12–14, Orlando, FL, 1275– 1286.

24.

Zareian

, Medina

R. A.

2010. A practical method for proper modeling of structural damping in inelastic plane structural systems, Computers and Structures 88, , 45– 53.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB

Seismic Performance Evaluation of Steel Ordinary Moment Frames

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material