Abstract
The beneficial effect of using hybrid frames is realized in terms of the reduction of some desired engineering demand parameters (EDPs). However, this is achieved at the cost of increasing the values of some other EDPs as compared to the rigid frame. A good balance between the two can be achieved by selecting the optimum number of semirigid (SR) connections. In the present study, two schemes of the selection of the optimum number of SR connections are presented to obtain the desired benefit of the hybrid frame. One scheme provides the optimum number of SR connections which provides the desired reductions in the base shear (BS) and total number of plastic hinges formed () with the marginal increase in the maximum inter-story drift ratio (). The other scheme provides the number of SR connections to be used for achieving the limiting drift allowed in the hybrid frame and accordingly, obtains the percentage reductions of the BS and . Both schemes are developed using a graphical technique. Three illustrative examples are considered to demonstrate the efficacy of the two schemes using the nonlinear time history analysis under three types of earthquakes (i.e., near and far-field) at three peak ground accelaration (PGA) levels. The results of the study show that in both schemes of providing the optimum number of SR connections, significant reductions in the BS and can be achieved as compared to the fully rigid frame. The corresponding in the hybrid frames remains less than equal to the limiting value of the prescribed in the literature.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
All data, models, and code generated or used during the study appear in the published article.
References
Abolmaali, A., A. Kukreti, A. Motahari, and M. Ghassemieh. 2009. “Energy dissipation characteristics of semi-rigid connections.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 65 (5): 1187–1197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2008.05.014.
Abolmaali, A., M. Razavi, and D. Radulova. 2012. “On the concept of earthquake resistant hybrid steel frames.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 68 (1): 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.07.001.
AISC. 2016a. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. ANSI/AISC-341. Chicago: AISC.
AISC. 2016b. Specification for structural steel buildings. AISC 360-16. Chicago: AISC.
Akbaş, B., and J. Shen. 2003. “Seismic behavior of steel buildings with combined rigid and semi-rigid frames.” Turk. J. Eng. Environ. Sci. 27 (4): 253–264.
ASCE. 2017. Seismic evaluation and retrofit rehabilitation of existing buildings. ASCE 41-17. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Bayat, M., and S. M. Zahrai. 2017. “Seismic performance of mid-rise steel frames with semi-rigid connections having different moment capacity.” Steel Compos. Struct. 25 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2017.25.1.000.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 1987. Part 1: Dead loads—Unit weights of building materials and stored materials. IS-875. New Delhi, India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 2007. General construction in steel-code of practice (Third Revision). IS-800. New Delhi, India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 2016. Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, Part 1 general provisions and buildings (Sixth Revision). IS-1893. New Delhi, India: BIS.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 2006. Eurocode 3—Design of steel structures. Norway, Europe: CEN.
Chan, S., and P. Chui. 2000. Nonlinear static and cyclic analysis of steel frames with semi-rigid connections. New York: Elsevier.
CSI (Computers and Structures Inc.). 2021. Integrated software for structural analysis and design, SAP2000v22. Berkeley, CA: CSI.
Diaferio, M. 2018. “Performance of seismic shear panels under near-field motions.” Int. J. Eng. Technol. 7 (2): 196–200. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i2.23.11915.
Diaferio, M., and D. Foti. 2015. “On the nonlinear behavior of rc buildings in near-field areas.” Int. J. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 9 (5): 607–613.
Diaferio, M., and D. Foti. 2016. “Mechanical behavior of buildings subjected to impulsive motions.” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 14 (3): 849–862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9848-5.
Díaz, C., P. Martí, M. Victoria, and O. M. Querin. 2011. “Review on the modelling of joint behaviour in steel frames.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 67 (5): 741–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.12.014.
Dubina, D., A. Stratan, G. De Matteis, and G. D. Landolfo. 2000. “Seismic performance of dual steel moment-resisting frames.” In Proc., Int. Conf. on Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas, 569–576. Montreal: Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003211198.
Elnashai, A., and A. Elghazouli. 1994. “Seismic behaviour of semi-rigid steel frames.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 29 (1–3): 149–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/0143-974X(94)90060-4.
Elnashai, A. S., and L. Di Sarno. 2008. Fundamentals of earthquake engineering. New York: Wiley.
Feizi, M. G., A. Mojtahedi, and V. Nourani. 2015. “Effect of semi-rigid connections in improvement of seismic performance of steel moment-resisting frames.” Steel Compos. Struct. 19 (2): 467–484. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2015.19.2.467.
FEMA. 2009. Quantification of building seismic performance factors. FEMA-P695. Washington, DC: FEMA.
Ghassemieh, M., and N. Vahedi. 2015. Seismic evaluation of hybrid steel frames with different patterns of semi-rigid connection. Incheon, Korea: ASEM.
Jalali, S., M. Banazadeh, A. Abolmaali, and E. Tafakori. 2012. “Probabilistic seismic demand assessment of steel moment frames with side-plate connections.” Sci. Iran. 19 (1): 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scient.2011.11.036.
Jangid, R. S. 2004. “Response of SDOF system to non-stationary earthquake excitation.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 33 (Feb): 1417–1428. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.409.
Khajehpour, M., Y. Pan, and T. Tannert. 2021. “Seismic analysis of hybrid steel moment frame CLT shear walls structures.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 35 (5): 04021059. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001633.
Kishi, N., W. Chen, Y. Goto, and R. Hasan. 1996. “Behavior of tall buildings with mixed use of rigid and semi-rigid connections.” Comput. Struct. 61 (6): 1193–1206. https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(96)00052-1.
Kitipomchai, S., F. G. Al-Bermani, and S. L. Chan. 1990. “Elasto-plastic finite element models for angle steel frames.” J. Struct. Eng. 116 (10): 2567–2581. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1990)116:10(2567).
Lemonis, M. 2018. “Steel moment resisting frames with both joint and beam dissipation zones.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 147 (Apr): 224–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.03.020.
Liu, Y., L. Xu, and D. E. Grierson. 2008. “Compound-element modeling accounting for semi-rigid connections and member plasticity.” Eng. Struct. 30 (5): 1292–1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.07.026.
Mahmoud, H. N., A. S. Elnashai, B. F. Spencer Jr., O.-S. Kwon, and D. J. Bennier. 2013. “Hybrid simulation for earthquake response of semirigid partial-strength steel frames.” J. Struct. Eng. 139 (7): 1134–1148. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000721.
Nader, M., and A. Astaneh. 1991. “Dynamic behavior of flexible, semirigid and rigid steel frames.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 18 (3): 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/0143-974X(91)90024-U.
Patel, C. C., and R. S. Jangid. 2011. “Dynamic response of adjacent structuresconnected by friction damper.” Earthquakes Struct. 2 (2): 149–169. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2011.2.2.149.
PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research). 2013. Ground motion database. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California.
Peng, H., J. Ou, A. Schellenberg, F. Mckenna, and S. Mahin. 2020. “Seismic behavior of steel moment frames with mechanical hinge beam-to-column connections.” Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 20 (6): 2040005. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219455420400052.
Razavi, M., and A. Abolmaali. 2014. “Earthquake resistance frames with combination of rigid and semi-rigid connections.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 98 (Feb): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.02.006.
Reyes, J. C., and E. Kalkan. 2012. “How many records should be used in an ASCE/SEI-7 ground motion scaling procedure?” Earthquake Spectra 28 (3): 1223–1242. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000066.
Sharma, V., M. Bhandari, M. Shrimali, S. Bharti, and T. Datta. 2022a. “Numerical study of hybrid steel frames under far-field earthquakes.” ASPS Conf. Proc. 1 (2): 379–386. https://doi.org/10.38208/acp.v1.525.
Sharma, V., M. Bhandari, M. K. Shrimali, S. Bharti, and T. Datta. 2022b. “Seismic performance assessment of semi-rigid frames for different performance criteria.” In Proc., Indian Structural Steel Conf. (ISSC 2020). Hyderabad, India: Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad.
Sharma, V., K. Kumbhojkar, M. Shrimali, S. Bharti, and T. Datta. 2022c. “Performance assessment of hybrid steel frames under near-field seismic excitations.” ASPS Conf. Proc. 1 (2): 379–386. https://doi.org/10.38208/acp.v1.582.
Sharma, V., M. Shrimali, S. Bharti, and T. Datta. 2019. “Seismic energy dissipation in semi-rigid connected steel frames.” In Proc., 16th World Conf. on Seismic Isolation, Energy Dissipation and Active Vibration Control of Structures. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Sharma, V., M. Shrimali, S. Bharti, and T. Datta. 2020a. “Sensitivity of lateral load patterns on the performance assessment of semi-rigid frames.” In Proc., 7th Nirma University Int. Conf. on Engineering (NUiCONE 2019). London: CRC Press.
Sharma, V., M. Shrimali, S. Bharti, and T. Datta. 2021a. Seismic energy loss in semi-rigid steel frames under near-field earthquakes. Berlin: Springer.
Sharma, V., M. K. Shrimali, S. Bharti, and T. Datta. 2020b. “Evaluation of responses of semi rigid frames at target displacements predicted by the nonlinear static analysis.” Steel Compos. Struct. Int. J. 36 (4): 399–415. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2020.36.4.399.
Sharma, V., M. K. Shrimali, S. Bharti, and T. Datta. 2021b. “Seismic fragility evaluation of semi-rigid frames subjected to near-field earthquakes.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 176 (3): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.106384.
Sharma, V., M. K. Shrimali, S. Bharti, and T. Datta. 2021c. “Seismic demand assessment of semi-rigid steel frames at different performance points.” Steel Compos. Struct. Int. J. 41 (5): 713–730. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2021.41.5.713.
Sharma, V., M. K. Shrimali, S. D. Bharti, and T. K. Datta. 2020c. “Behavior of semi-rigid steel frames under near- and far-field earthquakes.” Steel Compos. Struct. Int. J. 34 (5): 625–641. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2019.34.5.625.
Sharma, V., S. Vern, M. K. Shrimali, S. Bharti, and T. Datta. 2022d. “Seismic behavior assessment of semi-rigid frame under near-field earthquakes.” In Proc., 1st Indian Structural Steel Conf. (ISSC 2020). Hyderabad, India: Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad.
Tirca, L., D. Foti, and M. Diaferio. 2003. “Response of middle-rise steel frames with and without passive dampers to near-field ground motions.” Eng. Struct. 25 (2): 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00132-3.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2023 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Dec 27, 2022
Accepted: Apr 5, 2023
Published online: Jun 6, 2023
Published in print: Aug 1, 2023
Discussion open until: Nov 6, 2023
ASCE Technical Topics:
- Concrete
- Connections (structural)
- Drift (structural)
- Engineering fundamentals
- Engineering materials (by type)
- Frames
- Hybrid methods
- Materials engineering
- Methodology (by type)
- Nonlinear analysis
- Plastic hinges
- Reinforced concrete
- Rigid frames
- Seismic tests
- Structural analysis
- Structural behavior
- Structural engineering
- Structural members
- Structural systems
- Tests (by type)
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.