Seismic Performance Factors of Special Moment Resisting Steel Frames Subjected to Far- and Near-Field Ground Motions

Document Type : Research Article


Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran


Different and to some extent poor seismic performance of structural systems under various types of near-field earthquake excitation, made re-assess and re-evaluation of “seismic performance factors” used in building codes, an inevitable important task. In this paper, seismic performance of special moment resisting steel frame system (SMRSF) under near-Field (with and without pulse) and far-field record excitation is investigated through FEMA P695 methodology. In order to cover the “design space” of the selected structural system, archetypes consisted of 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 and 15 story buildings with 4 and 8 meters bay are selected and designed based on Iran’s national building codes for a “very high seismic” region. Corresponding non-linear models are built based on most recent advances in structural components modeling using OpenSees software. At first by performing non-linear static analysis, overstrength factor and period-based ductility are evaluated and quality of non-linear models is controlled. Afterwards, incremental dynamic analyses (IDA) are performed using far-field, near-field pulse like and non pulse like records. Finally, by using IDA results, “adjusted collapse margin ratio (ACMR)” of the models are calculated and compared to “allowable collapse margin ratio (ACMRallowable)”. Therefore, seismic performance of the models are evaluated and “response modification coefficient” (R) for the system is investigated and compared with this factor under different types of ground motion records. Results indicated that except for 15 story buildings, proposed “response modification coefficient” and “over-strength factor “for SMRSF system are adequate under far-field records. However under pulse like near field ground motions, it was observed that short period structures are to some extent vulnerable. For long period structures, in contrast with far-field records, seismic performance of structures designed by prescriptive provisions has adequate performance under near-field pulse like motions.


Main Subjects

[1] S. Li, L.-l. Xie, Progress and trend on near-field problems in civil engineering, ACTA Seismologica Sinica, 20(1) (2007) 105-114.
[2] J.P. Stewart, S.-J. Chiou, J.D. Bray, R.W. Graves, P.G. Somerville, N.A. Abrahamson, Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), 2001.
[3] P.G. Somerville, Development of an improved representation of near-fault ground motions, in: SMIP98 Proceedings, Seminar on Utilization of Strong-Motion Data, California Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, CA, 1998, pp. 1-20.
[4] B. Alavi, H. Krawinkler, Consideration of Near-Fault Ground Motion Effects in Seismic Design, in: 12WCEE, Auckland, New Zeland, 2000, pp. 2665.
[5] B. Alavi, H. Krawinkler, Effects of near-fault ground motions on frame structures, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, CA, USA, 2001.
[6] S.Y. Yun, O. Ronald, C. Hamburger, A. Cornell, D.A. Foutch., Seismic Performance Evaluation for Steel Moment Frames, Journal of Structural Engineering, (2002) 534-545.
[7] S. Krishnan, C. JI, D. Komatitsch, J. Tromp, Performance of two 18-story steel moment frame buildings in southern California during two large simulated San Andreas earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra, 22(4) (2006) 1035–1061.
[8] E. Kalkan, S.K. Kunnath, Effects of fling step and forward directivity on seismic response of buildings, Earthquake Spectra, 22(2) (2006) 367-390.
[9] C.A. Maniatakis, I.M. Taflampas, C.C. Spyrakos, Identification of Near-fault Earthquake Record Characteristics, in: The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 2008.
[10] F. Zareian, D. Lignos, H. Krawinkler, Evaluation of seismic collapse performance of steel special moment resisting frames using FEMA P695 (ATC-63) methodology, in: Proceedings of the 2010 Structures Congress, ASCE, 2010.
[11] F. Zareian, D. Lignos, H. Krawinkler, Seismic design modification factors for steel special moment-resisting frames, in: International Workshop on Protection of Build Environment against Earthquakes, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2010.
[12] S. Krishnan, M. Muto, Sensitivity of the Earthquake Response of Tall Steel Moment Frame Buildings to Ground Motion Features, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 17(5) (2013) 673-698.
[13] A. Mathiasson, R.A. Medina, Seismic Collapse Assessment of a 20-Story Steel Moment-Resisting Frame Structure, Buildings, 4 (2014) 806-822.
[14] Applied Technology Council, FEMA P695: Quantification of building seismic performance factors, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington D.C., 2009.
[15] Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Iranian national building code part 10: Design and Construction of Steel structures, Iran, 2009. [In Persian]
[16] Building and Housing Research Center, Iranian Code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings, Iran, 2005. [In Persian]
[17] D. Lignos, Sidesway collapse of deteriorating structural systems under seismic excitations, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, 2008.
[18] OpenSees, Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, in, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), 2007.
[19] A. Gupta, H. Krawinkler, Seismic Demands for Performance Evaluation of Steel Moment Resisting Frame Structures, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1999.
[20] H. Krawinkler, V. Bertero, E. Popov, Inelastic Behavior of Steel Beam-to-column Sub-assemblages, Earthquake Engineering Research Center (EERC), University of California at Berkeley, CA, 1971.
[21] D. Vamvatsikos, M. Eeri, Cornell C. A., Applied Incremental Dynamic Analysis, in: 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, UK, 2002.
[22] J.W. Baker, Quantitative Classification of Near-Fault Ground Motions Using Wavelet Analysis, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 97(5) (2007) 1486-1501.