Performance Based Seismic Analysis on the Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Frames with Different Ductility

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Professor, Faculty of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

2 MSc Student, Faculty of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The recent earthquakes exhibit that the uses of seismic design codes of practice yet do not provide sufficient comprehensive safety for buildings. This means that during earthquakes all structures would behave various performances, while the design objectives in current building codes address life safety, control damage in minor and moderate earthquakes, and prevent collapse in a major earthquake. In this respect, evaluation of performance of existing buildings designed in accordance with the current seismic code of practices could improve these codes and provide ample precision related to the expected structural behavior. This paper investigates the various performances of 72 reinforced concrete moment resisting frames (RCMRF) with low and moderate ductility. These structures are designed in accordance with Iranian seismic standard 2800 and Iranian concrete code of practice. The seismic performances of all structures investigated, discussed and compared under the nonlinear static (pushover) and nonlinear dynamic analysis. The moderate ductile structures (except two stories) due to earthquake hazard level 1 exhibit life safety level of  performance, which transfers to immediate occupation level by increasing the height of the structure. Among the low ductile structures, all regular six, eight and ten stories have life safety performance while the two and four stories show low level of performance expected by standard 2800. The general comparisons among all moderate and low ductile structures show the better performance for that of moderate structures.  

Keywords

References

[1] Moehle JP., “Displacement-based seismic design criteria. In: Proceedings of 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico. Paper no. 2125. Oxford: Pergamon, 1996.
[2] Krawinkler, H., “Chalenges and Progress in Performance–Based Earthquake Engineering”, International Seminar on Seismic Engineering for Tomorrow, Tokyo, Japan. November, 1999.
[3] Holmes Consulting Group Ltd., “Performance Based Evaluation of Buildings, Nonlinear Push Over and Time History Analysis”, Reference Manual, Wellington, New Zealand, 2001.
[4] SEAOC. Vision 2000, “Performance based seismic engineering of buildings, vols. I and II: Conceptual framework”, Sacramento (CA): Structural Engineers Association of California, 1995.
[5] ATC 40, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing concrete buildings. Redwood City (CA): Applied Technology Council, 1996.
[6] FEMA 273, NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings; FEMA 274, Commentary. Washington (DC): Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1996.
[7] Krawinkler H. New trends in seismic design methodology. In: Proceedings of 10th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vienna,
[8] Austria, vol. 2. Rotterdam: AA Balkema, pp. 821– 830, 1995.
Ghobarah Ahmed, “Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: state of Development”, Engineering Structures, vol 23, pp. 878– 884, 2001.
[9] Krawinkler, H. & Seneviratna, G.D.P.K. (1998), “Pros and Cons of Push Over analysis of seismic performance evaluation”, Engineering Structures, Vol 20, Nos. 4-6, pp. 452- 464, 1997.
[10] Bertero V. State of the art report on: design criteria. In: Proceedings of 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico. Paper no, 2005, 1996.
[11] Rojahn C, Whittaker A. Proposed framework for performance based design of new buildings. In: Proceedings of 6th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Oakland (CA): Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, [CD- Rom], 1998.
[12] Fajfar P. Trends in seismic design and performance evaluation approaches. In: Proceedings of 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Rotterdam: AA Balkema, pp. 237– 49, 1998.
[13] Tassios TP. Seismic design: state of practice. In: Proceedings of 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Rotterdam: AA Balkema, pp. 255– 67, 1998.
[14] Priestley MJN. Displacement-based approaches to rational limit states design of new structures. In: Proceedings of 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Rotterdam: AA Balkema, pp. 317– 35, 1998.
[15] Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic resistant Design of Buildings (standard 2800), Building and Housing research center (BHRC), PN. S 465, 2007.
[16] Iranian Concrete Code of Practice (ABA), Planning and Management Organization, PN. 120, 2001.
[17] Borzi B, Elnashai AS. Assessment of inelastic response of buildings using force and displacement based approaches, Struct Design Tall Bldgs, vol. 9 (2), pp. 251–77, 2000.
[18] Valles, R.E. ; Reinhorn, A.M; Kunnath, S.K, ; Li, C. & Madan, A, IDARC-2D Version 4.0, “A Program for the Inelastic Damage Analysis of R/C Buildings”, 1996.
[19] Wilson, E.L. & Habibullah, A., “Static & Dynamic Analysis Multistory Building, Including P-Delta Effects”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol.3, No. 2, pp. 289- 298, 1987.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics