The accuracy of several assumptions made when developing the methodology for nonlinear response history analysis of Chapter 16 of ASCE/SEI 7 is investigated. The major findings of this work include: (1) Modeling the gravity system's lateral influence can have a significant effect on system behavior, but it is generally conservative to neglect its contribution. (2) Exclusion of a residual drift check is acceptable when collapse prevention is the primary objective. (3) Spectrally matched ground motions should cautiously be used for near-field sites. (4) The effects of nonlinear accidental torsion can be influential, and should be considered for the analysis of torsionally irregular buildings. (5) When analyzed using FEMA P-695, a structure designed per ASCE/SEI 7 Chapter 16 may have a probability of collapse that is different than the target value associated with the system's risk category.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Al AtikL., and AbrahamsonN., 2010. An improved method for nonstationary spectral matching, Earthquake Spectra26, 601–617.
2.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2005. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Reston, VA.
3.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2006. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, Reston, VA.
4.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2010. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Reston, VA.
5.
BazzurroP., CornellC., MenunC., and MotahariM., 2004. Guidelines for seismic assessment of damaged buildings, in Proceedings, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper 1708, Vancouver, Canada.
6.
BazzurroP., and LucoN., 2006. Do scaled and spectrum-matched near-source records produce biased nonlinear structural responses?, in Proceedings, 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, CA.
7.
CharneyF., and MarshallJ., 2006. A comparison of the Krawinkler and scissors models for including beam-column joint deformations in the analysis of moment-resisting steel frames, Engineering Journal – American Institute of Steel Construction43, 31–48.
8.
De la LleraJ. C., and ChopraA. K., 1995. Estimation of accidental torsion effects for seismic design of buildings, Journal of Structural Engineering121, 102–114.
9.
ElkadyA., and LignosD., 2015. Effect of gravity framing on the overstrength and collapse capacity of steel frame buildings with perimeter moment frames, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics44, 1289–1307.
10.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009. Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, FEMA P-695, Washington, D.C.
11.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2012. Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, FEMA P-58, Washington, D.C.
12.
FloresF., CharneyF., and Lopez-GarciaD., 2014. Influence of the gravity framing system on the collapse performance of special steel moment frames, Journal of Constructional Steel Research101, 351–362.
13.
FloresF., CharneyF., Lopez-GarciaD., and de la LleraL., 2015. The influence of accidental torsion on the inelastic dynamic response of buildings during earthquakes, Proceedings of the XI Chilean Congress on Seismology and Seismic Engineering, Santiago, Chile.
14.
FloresF., CharneyF., and Lopez-GarciaD., 2016. The influence of gravity column continuity on the seismic performance of special steel moment frame structures, Journal of Constructional Steel Research118, 217–230.
15.
GreenT., LeonR., and RassatiG., 2004. Bidirectional tests and partially restrained, composite beam column connections, Journal of Structural Engineering130, 320–327.
16.
GuptaA., and KrawinklerH., 2000. Estimation of Seismic Drift Demands for Frames Structures, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics29, 1278–1305.
17.
HancockJ., BommerJ. J., and StaffordP. J., 2008. Numbers of scaled and matched accelerograms required for inelastic dynamic analyses, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics37, 1585–1607.
18.
HaseltonC. B., BakerJ. W., StewartJ. P., WhittakerA. S., LucoN., FryA., HamburgerR. O., ZimmermanR. B., HooperJ. D., CharneyF. A., and PekelnickyR. G., 2017a. Response history analysis for the design of new buildings in the NEHRP provisions and ASCE/SEI 7 standard: Part I - Overview and specification of ground motions, Earthquake Spectra33, 373–395.
19.
HaseltonC. B., FryA., HamburgerR. O., BakerJ. W., LucoN., ElwoodK.J., WhittakerA. S., HooperJ. D., CharneyF. A., ZimmermanR. B., and PekelnickyR. G., 2017b. Response history analysis for the design of new buildings in the NEHRP provisions and ASCE/SEI 7 standard: Part II - Structural analysis procedures and acceptance criteria, Earthquake Spectra33, 397–417.
20.
JarrettJ. A., ZimmermanR. B., and CharneyF. A., 2014. Accidental torsion in nonlinear response history analysis, Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Anchorage, AK.
21.
KrawinklerH., 1978. Shear in beam-column joints in seismic design of steel frames, Engineering Journal, AISC, 15, 82–91.
22.
LeeK., and FoutchD. A., 2004. Performance evaluation of damaged steel frame buildings subjected to seismic loads, Journal of Structural Engineering130, 588–599.
23.
LignosD., and KrawinklerH., 2011. Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading, Journal of Structural Engineering137, 1291–1302.
24.
LuiJ., and Astaneh-AslA., 2000. Cyclic testing of simple connections including effects of slab, Journal of Structural Engineering126, 32–39.
25.
MansuriM., 2009. Torsional Effect on the Inelastic Seismic Response of Structures, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California.
26.
McCormickJ., AburanoH., IkenagaM., and NakashimaM., 2008. Permissible residual deformation levels for building structures considering both safety and human elements, in Proceedings, 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
27.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 2010. Evaluation of the FEMA P-695 Methodology for Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, NIST GCR 10-917-8, Redwood City, CA.
28.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 2011. Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing Response-History Analyses, NIST GCR 11-917-15, Redwood City, CA.
29.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), 2009. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSEES) User Command Language Manual, Berkeley CA.
30.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), 2010. Guidelines for Performance-Based Design of Tall Buildings.
31.
RaghunandanM., LielA. B., and LucoN., 2015. Aftershock collapse vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete frame structures, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics44, 419–439.
32.
RamirezC., and MirandaE., 2012. Significance of residual drifts in building earthquake loss estimation, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics41, 1477–1493.
33.
RassatiG., LeonR., and NoeS., 2004. Component modeling of partially restrained composite joints under cyclic and dynamic loading, Journal of Structural Engineering130, 342–351.
34.
Ruiz-GarcíaJ., and MirandaE., 2010. Probabilistic estimation of residual drift demands for seismic assessment of multi-story framed buildings, Engineering Structures32, 11–20.
35.
Ruiz-GarciaJ., and Negrete-ManriquezJ., 2011. Evaluation of drift demands in existing steel frames under as-recorded far-field and near-fault mainshock-aftershock seismic sequences, Engineering Structures33, 621–634.
36.
ZareianF., LignosD., and KrawinklerH., 2010. Evaluation of seismic collapse performance of steel special moment resisting frames using FEMA P695 (ATC-63) methodology, in Proceedings of Structures Congress.
37.
ZimmermanR. B., BakerJ. W., HaseltonC. B., HooperJ. D., BonoS., EngelA., HamburgerR. O., CelikbasA., and JalalianA., 2017. Response history analysis for the design of new buildings in the NEHRP provisions and ASCE/SEI 7 standard: Part III - Example applications illustrating the recommended methodology, Earthquake Spectra33, 419–447.
