Optimal Stiffness Distribution of Steel Moment Frames under Extreme Earthquake Loading

Abstract

The paper presents a design optimization method for steel moment frames under extreme earthquake loading. Seismic demands of the structures are evaluated using a nonlinear pushover analysis procedure. Least structural weight is taken explicitly as one design objective. The other objective, pursuing uniform ductility demands in all stories, is realized indirectly by imposing an equal limit to the plastic interstory drift ratio of each story. Explicit forms of the objective function and constraints in terms of member sizing variables are formulated to enable computer solution for the optimization model. The proposed design formulation seeks a least-weight design with an optimal lateral stiffness distribution for steel moment frames. The concepts are illustrated for a three-story moment frame example.

Keywords

structural optimization steel moment frames earthquake engineering pushover analysis ductility stiffness distribution

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

AISC (1994). Manual of Steel Construction, Load & Resistance Factor Design, Volume I, Second Edition, American Institute of Steel Construction.

AISC (2002). Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction.

ASCE (2002). Recent Advances in Optimal Structural Design, Edited by Burns

Scout A

, American Society of Civil Engineers.

Bruneau

Uang

C.M.

and Whittaker

(1998). Ductile Design of Steel Structures, McGraw-Hill Companies.

BSSC (1997). NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC.

Chen

W.F.

and Lui

E.M.

(1991). Stability Design of Steel Frames, CRC Press.

Chopra

A.K.

(2001). Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall.

Cohn

M.Z.

(1972). Analysis and Design of Inelastic Structures – Volume 2: Problems, University of Waterloo Press, Ontario, Canada.

CSA (2001). S16–01: Limit States Design of Steel Structures, Canadian Standards Association, Ontario, Canada.

10.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-350 (2000). Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, SAC Joint Venture.

11.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-356 (2000). Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, USA.

12.

Fleury

(1979). “Structural weight optimization by dual methods of convex programming”, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 14, pp.1761–1783.

13.

Foley

C.M.

Pezeshk

and Alimoradi

(2003). “State of the art in performance-based design optimization”, Proceedings of ASCE Structures Congress, Seattle, Washington.

14.

Foutch

D.A.

and Yun

S.Y.

(2002). “Modeling of steel moment frames for seismic loads”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 58, pp. 529–564.

15.

Gong

and Grierson

D.E.

(2005). “Performance-based design sensitivity analysis of steel moment frameworks under seismic loading”, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 63, pp. 1229–1249.

16.

Gong

(2003). Performance-Based Design of Steel Building Frameworks under Seismic Loading, PhD Thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

17.

Gupta

and Kunnath

S.K.

(2000). “Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic evaluation of structures”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 367–392.

18.

Hasan

and Grierson

D.E.

(2002). “Pushover analysis for performance-based seismic design”, Computers & Structures, Vol. 80, No. 31, pp. 2483–2493.

19.

ICC (2000). International Building Code. International Code Council, Falls Church, Va.

20.

Kirsch

(1993). Structural Optimization, Fundamentals and Applications, Springer-Verlag.

21.

Krawinkler

and Seneviratna

G.D.P.K.

(1998). “Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 20, pp. 452–464.

22.

Kunnath

S.K.

(2004). “Identification of modal combinations for nonlinear static analysis of building structures”, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 19, pp. 246–259.

23.

McGuire

Gallagher

R.H.

and Ziemian

R.D.

(2000). Matrix Structural Analysis, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons.

24.

NRC (1995). National Building Code of Canada 1995, Associate Committee on National Building Code, National Research Council, Ottawa.

25.

Scawthorn

(2003). “Earthquake: A historical perspective”, Earthquake Engineering Handbook, Edited by Chen

W.F.

and Scawthorn

, CRC Press, USA.

26.

Schmit

L.A.

and Farshi

(1974). “Some approximation concepts for structural synthesis”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 692–699.

27.

Truman

K.Z.

and Cheng

F.Y.

(1997). “How to optimize for earthquake loads”, Guide to Structural Optimization, Edited by Arora

J. S.

, ASCE, pp. 237–261.