Required Column Overdesign Factor of 3D Steel Moment Frames with Square Tube Columns

Abstract:

Steel moment frames are designed to ensure sufficient energy absorption capacity by achieving an entire beam-hinging collapse mechanism against severe earthquakes. Therefore, the column overdesign factor is stipulated in seismic design codes in some countries. For example in Japanese seismic design code, the specified column overdesign factor is 1.5 or more for steel moment frames with square tube columns. And this paper describes seismic response by 3D analysis of steel moment frames, and presents seismic demand for the column overdesign factor to keep the damage of square tube columns below the specified limit of plastic deformation. The major parameters are column overdesign factor, horizontal load bearing capacity, shape of frames and input direction of ground motion. In order to investigate 3D behavior of frames and correlation between plastic deformation of columns and column over design factor, apparent column overdesign factor, which is defined as the ratio of full plastic moment of the column (s) to the full plastic moment of the beam (s) projected in the input direction of the ground motion, is introduced. From the earthquake response analysis, it is clarified that the profile of maximum value of cumulative plastic deformation of columns to apparent column overdesign factor, with the similar horizontal load bearing capacity, are nearly identical regardless of number of stories, floor plan, and input direction of ground motion. As a result, the required column overdesign factor to keep the damage of columns below the limit of plastic deformation is proposed under the reliability index of 2.

• Periodical: Key Engineering Materials (Volume 763)
• Pages: 235-242
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.763.235
• Online since: February 2018
• Authors: Iathong Chan, Yuji Koetaka*
• Keywords: 3D Steel Moment Frame, Column Overdesign Factor, Horizontal Load Bearing Capacity, Input Direction of Ground Motion, Time History Response Analysis

References

[1] M. Nakashima, C.W. Roeder and Y. Maruoka, Steel moment frames for earthquakes in United States and Japan, Journal of Structural Engineering. 126(8) (2008) 861-868.

DOI: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2000)126:8(861)

[2] AISC, ANSI/AISC 341-10. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, IL, (2010).

DOI: 10.1201/b11248-16

[3] The Building Center of Japan, The Building Standard Law of Japan, Tokyo, (2013).

[4] K. Ogawa, On the optimum elastic limit strength distribution of structural members in steel frames, Part 2 numerical examples, Transactions of the Architectural Institute of Japan. 328 (1983) 18-25. (in Japanese).

DOI: 10.3130/aijsaxx.328.0_18

[5] H. Lee, Revised rule for concepts of strong-column weak-girder design, Journal of Structural Engineering. 122(4) (1996) 359-364.

DOI: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(1996)122:4(359)

[6] S. Leelataviwat, S.C. Goel and B. Stojadinovic´, Toward Performance - Based Seismic Design of Structures, Earthquake Spectra. 15(3) (1999) 435-461.

DOI: 10.1193/1.1586052

[7] M. Nakashima and S. Sawaizumi, Effect of column-to-beam strength ratio on earthquake responses of steel moment frames, Part l column-to-beam strength ratio required for ensuring beam-hinging responses, Steel Construction Engineering. 6(23) (1999).

DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2547

[8] S. Sawaizumi and M. Nakashima, Effect of column-to-beam strength ratio on earthquake responses of steel moment frames, Part 2 response characteristics of frames involving column yielding, Steel Construction Engineering. 6(23) (1999).

[9] R. Bento and M. Lopes, Evaluation of the need for weak beam-strong column design in dual frame-wall structures, 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand (2000).

[10] K. Khandelwal, S. El-Tawil, S. Kunnath and H. Lew, Macromodel-based simulation of progressive collapse: steel frame structures, Journal of Structural Engineering. 134(7) (2008) 1070-1078.

DOI: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2008)134:7(1070)

[11] S.W. Choi and H.S. Park, Multi-objective seismic design method for ensuring beam-hinging mechanism in steel frames, Journal of Constructional Steel Research. 74 (2012) 17-25.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.01.012

[12] R. Kimura and K. Ogawa, Effect of column-to-beam strength ratio on maximum story drift angle response of steel frames under horizontal bi-directional ground motions, Steel Construction Engineering. 14(55) (2007) 111-121. (in Japanese).

[13] Y. Sakai and K. Ogawa, Pertinent column-to-beam strength ratio of steel frames subjectd to horizontal bidirectional ground motions, Steel Construction Engineering. 17(67) (2010) 53-64. (in Japanese).

[14] I. Chan, Y. Koetaka, K. Suita, Effects of Input Direction of Ground Motion and Column Overdesign Factor on Seismic Response of 3d Steel Moment Frames, Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. (2017).

DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/kem.763.235

[15] T. Kawashima, Y. Deguchi, K. Ogawa, Optimum Strength Distribution of Structural Members in Steel Frames, Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering, 635 (2009) 147-155. (in Japanese).

DOI: 10.3130/aijs.74.147

[16] C. Uang, Comparison of seismic force reduction factors used in U.S.A. and Japan, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics. 20 (1991) 389-397.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe.4290200407

[17] B. Kato, H. Akiyama and S. Kitazawa, Deformation characteristics of box-shaped steel members influenced by local buckling, Transactions of the Architectural Institute of Japan. 268 (1978) 71-76. (in Japanese).

DOI: 10.3130/aijsaxx.268.0_71

[18] B. Kato and H. Akiyama, The ultimate strength of the steel beam-column part 4, Transactions of the Architectural Institute of Japan. 151 (1968) 15-20. (in Japanese).

DOI: 10.3130/aijsaxx.151.0_15