Behavior of Ductile SMRFs at Various Seismic Hazard Levels
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 126, Issue 1
Abstract
A summary is presented of a comprehensive study on the seismic behavior of ductile steel moment resisting frame (SMRF) structures with fully restrained connections. The study focuses on the seismic behavior of code compliant structures of different heights (3-, 9-, and 20-stories), located in regions of different seismicity (Los Angeles, Seattle, and Boston), and subjected to sets of ground motions representative of various hazard levels (return periods of 72, 475, and 2,475 years). Structural behavior characteristics are illustrated by means of inelastic static (pushover) analysis results. Dynamic performance characteristics are evaluated from story drift demand predictions obtained through nonlinear time history analysis. The sensitivity of the response to analytical modeling is appraised. The performance of the model structures is found to be in fair agreement with general expectations for conventional design events and more frequent earthquake events. For rare events larger than expected inelastic deformations may be experienced and the potential for unacceptable performance is not negligible.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Gupta, A., and Krawinkler, H. (1999). “Seismic demands for performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frame structures.” John A. Blume Earthquake Engrg. Ctr. Rep. No. 132, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
2.
Gupta, A., and Krawinkler, H. (2000). “Dynamic P-delta effects for flexible inelastic steel structures.”J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 126(1), 145–154.
3.
“Interim guidelines: Evaluation, repair, modification and design of welded steel moment frame structures.” (1995). FEMA 267, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.
4.
Krawinkler, H. (1978). “Shear design of steel frame joints.” AISC Engrg. J., 15(3).
5.
Krawinkler, H., and Seneviratna, G. D. P. K. (1998). “Pros and cons of a pushover analysis for seismic performance evaluation.” J. Engrg. Struct., 20(4–6), 452–464.
6.
National building code. (1993). 12th Ed., Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc., Country Club Hills, Ill.
7.
“NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.” (1997). FEMA 273, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.
8.
Seneviratna, G. D. P. K., and Krawinkler, H. (1997). “Evaluation of inelastic MDOF effects for seismic design.” John A. Blume Earthquake Engrg. Ctr. Rep. No. 120, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
9.
Somerville, P., et al. (1997). “Development of ground motion time histories for phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC steel project.” SAC Background Document, Rep. No. SAC/BD-97/04, SAC Joint Venture, 555 University Ave., Sacramento, Calif.
10.
Uniform building code. (1994). Vol. 2, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, Calif.
11.
USGS. (1996). “National seismic hazard maps: Documentation June 1996.” Open File Rep. 96-532.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 126 • Issue 1 • January 2000
Pages: 98 - 107
History
Received: Apr 5, 1999
Published online: Jan 1, 2000
Published in print: Jan 2000
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.