From Design to Earthquake Loss Assessment of Steel Moment-Resisting Frames

Abstract:

Steel moment-resisting frames (MRFs) are well known for their ductile and stable hysteretic behaviour. For this reason, they are an attractive and effective structural system for seismic resistance. Current seismic design codes, namely Eurocode 8, provide system performance factors that should be used in the seismic design under different ductility classes. However, recent research studies have shown that the use of the code-prescribed performance factors lead to stiffer and heavier structural solutions that are not consistent with the performance-based design assumptions. A new methodology, Improved Force-Based Design (IFBD), has recently been proposed with the aim of a more rational determination of the adopted value of the behaviour factor, q, instead of using the upper bound reference values provided by the design code. This paper investigates if the obtained values of q for both EC8 and IFBD concerning steel MRFs are not only adequate, but also provide sufficient margins against collapse under maximum considered earthquake (MCE) ground motions. To this end, the methodology proposed in FEMA P695 was used. Additionally, the expected direct economic seismic losses are computed according to the PEER-PBEE methodology.

• Periodical: Key Engineering Materials (Volume 763)
• Pages: 124-130
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.763.124
• Online since: February 2018
• Authors: Luís Macedo*, Antonio Silva, José Miguel Castro
• Keywords: Eurocode 8, FEMA P695, Improved Force-Based Design, Loss Assessment, Moment-Resisting Steel Frames

References

[1] EN 1998–1 Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1, General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, European Commitee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium, CEN (2005).

DOI: 10.1002/9783433609194.ch3

[2] A. Villani, J.M. Castro, A.Y. Elghazouli, Improved seismic design procedure for steel moment frames, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Behaviour of Steel in Seismic Areas: STESSA 2009, Philadelphia, PA, USA, (2009).

DOI: 10.1201/9780203861592.ch97

[3] FEMA P695: Quantification of building seismic performance factors, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, D.C., USA, FEMA (2009).

DOI: 10.1007/springerreference_225387

[4] C.M. Ramirez, E. Miranda, Building-Specific Loss Estimation Methods & Tools for Simplified Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering. Technical Report No. 171, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford, CA, USA, (2009).

[5] K.A. Porter, An Overview of PEER's Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology, Proceedings of Ninth International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering: ICASP9, SF, CA, USA, (2003).

[6] EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 1-1, General rules and rules for buildings, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium, CEN (2005).

[7] A.Y. Elghazouli, Seismic Design of Buildings to Eurocode 8, CRC Press, Florida, USA, (2009).

[8] PEER. OpenSees: Open system for earthquake engineering simulation, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, (2006).

[9] D.G. Lignos, H., Krawinkler, Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading, Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(11): 1291–1302, (2011).

DOI: 10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0000376

[10] M. Araújo, L. Macedo, J.M. Castro, Calibration of strength and stiffness deterioration hysteretic models using optimization algorithms, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Behavior of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas: STESSA'15, Shanghai, China, (2015).

[11] F. Zareian, D.G. Lignos, H. Krawinkler, Evaluation of seismic colapse performance of steel special moment resisting frames using FEMA P695 (ATC-63) methodology, Proceedings of the 2010 Structures Congress, Orlando, FL, USA, (2010).

DOI: 10.1061/41130(369)116

[12] D. Vamvatsikos, C.A. Cornell, Incremental dynamic analysis, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31(3): 491–514, (2001).

DOI: 10.1002/eqe.141

[13] HAZUS - Earthquake loss estimation methodology. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, (1999).

[14] N. Jayaram, N. Shome, M. Rahnama, Development of earthquake vulnerability functions for tall buildings, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 41: 1495–1514, (2012).

DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2231

[15] C.M. Ramirez, E. Miranda, Significance of residual drifts in building earthquake loss estimation, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 41(11): 1477–1493, (2012).

DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2217

[16] M. Pagani, D. Monelli, G. Weatherill, L. Danciu, H. Crowley, V. Silva, P. Hanshaw, L. Butler, M. Nastasi, L. Panzeri, M. Simionato, D. Viganò, OpenQuake Engine: An Open Hazard (and Risk) Software for the Global Earthquake Model, Seismological Research Letters, 85(3): 692–702, (2014).

DOI: 10.1785/0220130087

[17] J. Woessner, L. Danciu, D. Giardini, H. Crowley, F. Cotton, G. Grünthal, G. Valensise, R. Arvidsson, R. Basili, M.N. Demircioglu, S. Hiemer, C. Meletti, R.W. Musson, A.N. Rovida, K. Sesetyan, M. Stucchi, The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 13(12): 3553–3596, The SHARE consortium, (2015).

DOI: 10.1007/s10518-015-9795-1

[18] S.P. Vilanova, J.F.B.D. Fonseca, Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Assessment for Portugal, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 97(5): 1702–1717, (2007).

DOI: 10.1785/0120050198

[19] G.M. Atkinson, D.M. Boore, Earthquake Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for Eastern North America, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 96(6): 2181–2205, (2006).

DOI: 10.1785/0120050245

[20] S. Akkar, J.J. Bommer, Empirical equations for the prediction of PGA, PGV and spectral accelerations in Europe, the Mediterranean region and the Middle East. Seismological Research Letters, 81(2): 195–206, (2010).

DOI: 10.1785/gssrl.81.2.195

[21] V. Silva, H. Crowley, H. Varum, Seismic risk assessment for mainland Portugal", Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 13: 429–457, (2015).

DOI: 10.1007/s10518-014-9630-0

[22] P. Bazurro, C.A. Cornell, Disaggregation of Seismic Hazard, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 89(2): 501–520, (2011).

DOI: 10.1785/bssa0890020501

[23] L. Macedo, J.M. Castro, SelEQ: An advanced ground motion record selection and scaling framework, Advances in Engineering Software (in press), (2017).

DOI: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2017.05.005

[24] C.B. Haselton, J.W. Baker, A.B. Liel, G.G. Deierlein, Accounting for Ground Motion Spectral Shape Characteristics in Structural Collapse Assessment Through an Adjustment for Epsilon, Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(3): 332–344, (2011).

DOI: 10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0000103