Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

A controlled spine frame system consists of moment frames and spine frames with concentrated energy-dissipating members. This system guarantees the continuous usability of buildings against Japanese Level-2 earthquake events (similar to DBE events in California), and the authors have confirmed its excellent performance in preventing damage concentration in low-rise buildings. This study further investigates the effect of diverse structural properties on the seismic performance of controlled spine frames applied in high-rise buildings. The effect of building height, yield drift of dampers, spine-to-moment frame stiffness ratio, and damper-to-moment frame stiffness ratio are illustrated in detail, and optimal values are discussed. Also, a segmented spine frame system is proposed for high-rise buildings. The simple evaluation procedure proposed by the authors for low-rise buildings, based on equivalent linearization techniques and response spectrum analyses, was modified to include higher-mode effects for high-rise buildings based on modal analysis. The modified evaluation method was verified by modal pushover and time-history analyses.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akiyama

and Takahashi

1984. Ds-value for damage-dispersing type multi-story frames, Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering 341, 54–61 (in Japanese).

Alavi

and Krawinkler

2004. Strengthening of moment-resisting frame structures against near-fault ground motion effects, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 33, 707–722, available at https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.370.

Chen

Takeuchi

and Matsui

2017. Simplified design procedure for controlled spine frames with energy-dissipating members, Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering 135, 242–252, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.04.017.

Chopra

A. K.

and Goel

R. K.

2002. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 31, 561–582. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9845.

Chopra

A. K.

Goel

R. K.

and Chintanapakdee

2004. Evaluation of a modified MPA procedure assuming higher modes as elastic to estimate seismic demands, Earthquake Spectra 20(3), 757–778. doi:10.1193/1.1775237.

Djojo

G. S.

Clifton

G. C.

and Henry

R. S.

2014. Rocking steel shear walls with energy dissipation devices, Proceedings of the NZSEE Conference, 21–23 March, Auckland, New Zealand.

Eatherton

Hajjar

Krawinkler

and Deierlein

2010. Seismic design and behavior of steel frames with controlled rocking—Part I: Concepts and quasi-static subassembly testing, Proceedings of the 2010 NASCC & Structures Congress, 12–15 May 2010, Orlando, FL, 1523–1533.

Eatherton

Krawinkler

Mar

Billington

Hajjar

and Deierlein

2014. Design concepts for controlled rocking of self-centering steel-braced frames, Journal of Structural Engineering 140(11), 04014082.

Goel

R. K.

and Chopra

A. K.

2005. Role of higher-“mode” pushover analysis in seismic analysis of buildings, Earthquake Spectra 21(4), 1027–1041. doi:10.1193/1.2085189.

10.

Janhunen

Tipping

and Wolfe

2013. Seismic retrofit of a 1960s steel moment-frame high-rise using a pivoting spine, Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the Structural Engineers Association of California, 18–24 September, San Diego, CA, pp. 320–336.

11.

Krawinkler

and Seneviratna

G. D. P. K.

1998. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation, Engineering Structures 20(4–6), 452–464.

12.

Lai

and Mahin

2015. Strongback system: A way to reduce damage concentration in steel-braced frames, Journal of Structural Engineering 141(9), 04014223.

13.

MacRae

and Clifton

2013. Rocking structure design considerations, Proceedings of the Steel Innovations 2013 Workshop, 21–22 February, Christchurch, New Zealand.

14.

MacRae

G. A.

Kimura

and Roeder

2004. Effect of column stiffness on braced frame seismic behavior, Journal of Structural Engineering 130(3), 381–391.

15.

Mazzoni

McKenna

Scott

M. H.

and Fenves

G. L.

2006. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees) version 2.5.0, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, available at http://opensees.berkeley.edu (last accessed May 2017).

16.

Paulay

and Priestley

M. J. N

1992. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 500–516.

17.

Takeuchi

Chen

and Matsui

2015. Seismic performance of controlled spine frames with energy-dissipating members, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 114, 51–65, available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.07.002.

18.

Tanimura

and Ishida

1996. Nonlinear dynamic behavior of a Shinbashira–frame system, Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering 42, 635–642 (in Japanese).

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

0.19 MB

0.06 MB

Seismic Performance and Evaluation of Controlled Spine Frames Applied in High-rise Buildings

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material