Seismic Behavior of 3D Steel Moment Frame with Biaxial Columns
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 127, Issue 5
Abstract
Three-dimensional nonlinear dynamic time-history analyses of a three-story steel moment-resisting frame designed according to the Uniform Building Code for Los Angeles seismicity were carried out. Beams in both directions had moment connections to the hollow rectangular columns. Code drift limits, rather than code considerations for bidirectional horizontal shaking, governed the member sizes. It was found that design level shaking caused the structure to exceed story yield drifts in both directions simultaneously and significant column yielding occurred above the base. Shaking in the direction orthogonal to the main shaking direction increased drifts in the main shaking direction by 46 and 64% for the design level and near-fault records, respectively, indicating that 2D analyses would not estimate the 3D response well. Also, maximum horizontal seismic components of axial force in the corner columns and side columns were 4.87 and 5.30 times the code estimations, respectively. It was shown that by increasing the column strength above the present code levels, that drifts during near-fault shaking were significantly decreased. A methodology to encourage strong-column weak-beam behavior, and to more realistically estimate the column axial forces during design level shaking is described.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
American Institute for Steel Construction (AISC). ( 1994). AISC-LRFD manual of steel construction, Chicago.
2.
Chen, W. F., and Atsuta, T. ( 1977). Theory of beam columns, McGraw-Hill, New York.
3.
Clough, R., and Penzien, J. ( 1993). Dynamics of structures, 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
4.
Fernandez-Davila, I., Cominetti, S., and Cruz, E. F. ( 2000). “Considering the bi-directional effects and the seismic angle variations in building design.” Paper 0435, 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand.
5.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). ( 1998). NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings, 1997 edition, Washington, D.C.
6.
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). ( 1997). 1997 uniform building code, Whittier, Calif.
7.
Krawinkler, H., and Gupta, A. ( 1998). “Story drift demands for steel moment frame structures in different seismic regions.” Proc., 6th U.S. Nat. Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., 1998.
8.
MacRae, G. A. ( 1999). “Parametric study of the effect of seismic demands of ground motion intensity and dynamic characteristics.” SAC Steel Program Rep., SAC Joint Venture, Richmond, Calif.
9.
MacRae, G. A., and Mattheis, J. (2000). “Three-dimensional steel building response to near-fault motions.”J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 126(1), 117–126.
10.
MacRae, G. A., Walpole, W. R., and Carr, A. J. ( 1991). “Behaviour and design of moment-resisting steel frames.” Proc., Pacific Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., NZ National Society for Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand.
11.
Mattheis, J. ( 1998). “Inelastic three dimensional response of a steel building.” Masters thesis, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., University of Washington, Seattle.
12.
Menum, C., and Der Kiureghian, A. ( 1998). “A replacement for the 30%, 40%, and SRSS rules for multi-component seismic excitation.” Earthquake Spectra, 14(1), 153–164.
13.
Powell, G. H., and Campbell, S. ( 1994). “DRAIN-3DX base program description and user guide version 1.10.” Rep. No. UCB/SEMM-94/07&08, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
14.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N. ( 1992). Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings, Wiley, New York.
15.
Roeder, C. W., Carpenter, J. E., and Taniguchi, H. ( 1989). “Predicted ductility demands for steel moment resisting frames.” Earthquake Spectra, 5(2), 409–427.
16.
Roeder, C. W. ( 1997). “Redundancy and ductility in steel moment frames.” UCB/EERC-97/05, The EERC-CUREe Symposium in Honor of Vitelmo V. Bertero, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Calif., 85–92.
17.
Standards Association of New Zealand (SANZ). ( 1982). “New Zealand reinforced concrete design code.” NZS3101. Wellington, New Zealand.
18.
Somerville, P., Smith, N., Punyamurthula, S., and Sun, J. ( 1997). “Development of ground motion time histories for phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC steel project.” SAC Joint Venture Proj. Rep. No. SAC/BD-97/04, SAC Joint Venture, Richmond, Calif.
19.
Tagawa, H. ( 2000). “Seismic response of 3-D steel frames with bi-directional columns.” Masters thesis, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., University of Washington, Seattle.
20.
Yang, T.-S., and Popov, E. P. ( 1995). “Behavior of pre-Northridge moment resisting steel connections.” UCB/EERC-95/08, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 127 • Issue 5 • May 2001
Pages: 490 - 497
History
Received: Mar 14, 2000
Published online: May 1, 2001
Published in print: May 2001
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.