The effect of column-base flexibility on the response of steel moment frames is assessed through parametric simulation. The response of four frames (2-, 4-, 8-, and 12-story), designed as per current codes, is investigated through static push-over simulations and sophisticated nonlinear response-history simulations, including collapse simulation. For each frame, a range of base fixities is interrogated, including realistic values that are calculated from the designed connections. The results indicate that a reduction in base fixity alters the force distribution and the plastic mechanism, significantly reducing ductility capacity and strength, as well as collapse resilience, while increasing member forces. For the 4-, 8-, and 12-story frames, this trend suggests that the expected response of such frames is worse than is implied by simulations and design approaches that assume a fixed-base condition. However, the trend is beneficial for the 2-story frame, which is analyzed and designed assuming a pinned base.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 2010. Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design and Analysis of Tall Buildings, ATC 72-1, Redwood City, CA.
2.
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), 2010. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, Chicago, IL.
3.
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), 2011. Steel Construction Manual, 14th Edition, Chicago, IL.
4.
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), 2006. Seismic Design Manual, Chicago, IL.
5.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2006. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-05, Reston, VA.
6.
AstanehA., BergsmaG., and ShenJ. H., 1992, Behavior and design of base plates for gravity, wind and seismic loads, in Proceedings of the National Steel Construction Conference, AISC, Chicago, IL, 209–214.
7.
AviramA., StojadinovicB., and Der KiureghianA., 2010, Performance and Reliability of Exposed Column Base Plate Connections for Steel Moment Resisting Frames, Report 107, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
8.
DeierleinG. G., HajjarJ. F., YuraJ. A., WhiteD. W., and BakerW. F., 2002, Proposed new provisions for frame stability using second order analysis, in Proceedings of the 2002 Annual Stability Conference, Structural Stability Research Council, Seattle, WA, 1–20.
9.
DumasM., BeaulieuD., and PicardA., 2006, Characterization equations for steel column base connections, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering33, 409–420.
10.
EngelhardtM. D., and HusainA. S., 1992, Cyclic tests on large scale steel moment connections, in Proceedings of the Tenth World Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Balkema, Madrid, Spain, 2885–2890.
11.
ErmopoulosJ., and StamatopoulosG., 1996. Mathematical modeling of column base plate connections, Journal of Constructional Steel Research36, 79–100.
12.
FahmyM., StojadinovicB., and GoelS. C., 1999, Analytical and experimental studies on the seismic response of steel column bases, in Proceedings of the 8th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, CSCE, Vancouver, Canada, 101–106.
13.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009. Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, FEMA P695, Washington, D. C.
14.
FisherJ. M., and KloiberL. A., 2006. Design Guide 1: Base plate and anchor rod design, in Steel Design Guide Series, 2nd Edition, American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, IL.
15.
GomezI. R., KanvindeA. M., and DeierleinG. G., 2010. Exposed Column Base Connections Subjected to Axial Compression and Flexure, Report Submitted to the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Chicago, IL.
16.
GuptaA., and KrawinklerH., 2000. Dynamic P-delta effects for flexible inelastic steel structures, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering126, 145–154.
17.
IbarraL. F., and KrawinklerH., 2011. Variance of collapse capacity of SDOF systems under earthquake excitations, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics40, 1299–1314.
18.
IbarraL. F., MedinaR. A., and KrawinklerH., 2005. Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness degradation, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics34, 1489–1511.
19.
KanvindeA. M., GrilliD. A., and ZareianF., 2012. Rotational stiffness of exposed column base connections – experiments and analytical models, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering138, 549–560.
20.
KanvindeA. M., 2003. Methods to Evaluate the Dynamic Stability of Structures: Shake table tests and nonlinear dynamic analyses, EERI Graduate Student Paper Competition, 2003 winner.
21.
KrawinklerH., 1995. New trends in seismic design methodology, in Proceedings of the 10th European Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Balkema, Vienna, Austria, 821–830.
22.
KrawinklerH., and SeneviratnaG. D. P. K., 1998. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation, Engineering Structures20, 452–464.
23.
LielA. B., HaseltonC. B., DeierleinG. G., and BakerJ. W., 2009. Incorporating modeling uncertainties in the assessment of seismic collapse risk of buildings, Structural Safety31, 197–211.
24.
LignosD. G., and KrawinklerH., 2011. Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering137, 1291–1302.
25.
MaanO., and OsmanA., 2002. The influence of column base flexibility on the seismic response of steel framed structures, in Proceedings of the 4th Structural Specialty Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, CSCE, Montréal, Canada.
26.
Martinez-GarciaJ. M., and ZiemianR. D., 2006. Benchmark studies to compare frame stability provisions, in Proceedings of the 2006 Annual Stability Conference, Structural Stability Research Council, San Antonio, TX, 425–442.
27.
MelchersR. E., 1992. Rotational stiffness of shallow footings, Computers and Geotechnics13, 21–35.
28.
MedinaR. A., and KrawinklerH., 2003. Seismic Demands for Nondeteriorating Frame Structures and their Dependence on Ground Motions, Report No. 144, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
29.
MyersA. T., KanvindeA. M., DeierleinG. G., and FellB. V., 2009. Effect of weld details on the ductility of steel column baseplate connections, Journal of Constructional Steel Research65, 1366–1373.
30.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), 2010. Evaluation of the FEMA P-695 Methodology for Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, NIST GCR 10-917-8. NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture.
31.
PicardA., and BeaulieuD., 1985. Behavior of a simple column base connection, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering12, 126–136.
32.
PopovE. P., and BerteroV. V., 1980. Seismic analysis of some steel building frames, ASCE Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division106, 75–92. http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?5015194
33.
PrakashV., PowellG. H., and CampbellS. D., 1993. DRAIN-2DX Base Program Description and User Guide, Version 1.10, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
34.
RiclesJ. M., MaoC., LuL., and FisherJ. W., 2003. Ductile details for welded unreinforced moment connections subject to inelastic cyclic loading, Engineering Structures25, 667–680.
35.
SatoK., 1987. A Research on the Aseismic Behavior of Steel Column Base for Evaluating its Strength Capacity and Fixity, Report No. 69, Kajima Institute of Construction Technology, Tokyo, Japan.
36.
TangD. T., and CloughR. W., 1979. Shaking table earthquake response of steel frame, ASCE Journal of the Structural Division105, 221–243. http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?8552
WaldF., SokolZ., SteenhuisM., and JaspartJ., 2008. Component method for steel column bases, HERON53, 3–20. http://heronjournal.nl/53-12/1.pdf
39.
ZareianF., and KrawinklerH., 2009. Simplified Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering, Report No. 169, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
40.
ZareianF., and KrawinklerH., 2010. Structural system parameter selection based on collapse potential of buildings in earthquakes, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering136, 933–943.
41.
ZareianF., LignosD. G., and KrawinklerH., 2010a. Evaluation of seismic collapse performance of steel special moment resisting frames using FEMA P695 (ATC-63) methodology, Paper No. 1275, in Proceedings of the 2010 Structures Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1275–1286.
42.
ZareianF., KrawinklerH., IbarraL. F., and LignosD. G., 2010b. Basic concepts and performance measures in prediction of collapse of buildings under earthquake ground motions, The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings19, 167–181.
