Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering

Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering

Analogy of the seismic behavior of composite frames (concrete columns and steel beams) with steel and reinforced concrete frames in low-rise, mid-rise, and high-rise buildings

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Rasoul Mirghaderi 1
Jalal Ghezeljeh 2
Sina Kavei 3
1 Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Master, School of Civil Engineering, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran.
3 Master, Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.
10.22065/jsce.2024.413941.3208
Abstract
Steel Beam - Reinforced Concrete Column (RCS) frames are a new seismic load-bearing system. However, there has been limited research comparing the behavior of RCS frames to steel and concrete frames. This study aimed to fill that gap by examining moment frames in composite (RCS), steel, and reinforced concrete forms in three different height categories: 5, 10, and 20 stories. The frames were seismically loaded according to ASCE7-22 code and then designed and optimized based on AISC360-22 and ACI318-19 codes. Two-dimensional frames were extracted from the designed three-dimensional structures and subjected to nonlinear modeling in the finite element software OpenSees. Initial static nonlinear analyses were conducted to evaluate preliminary seismic responses in the post-yield regions, followed by incremental dynamic analyses on all models. The collapse states of the models were compared using fragility curves. The study found that the seismic intensity index for steel frames is roughly 1.27 times greater than that for RCS frames. Similarly, the intensity index in RCS frames is about 0.9 times that of concrete frames. Additionally, the collapse-related behavior in RCS frames was found to be more desirable than in concrete frames as the number of stories increases. At a given seismic intensity, the probability of collapse is lower in RCS frames than in concrete frames. The modified collapse margin ratio in ten-story frames and twenty-story RCS frames, compared to the concrete frame, is about 1.1 and 1.26, respectively. In conclusion, the study shows that RCS frames have a more favorable seismic performance compared to steel and concrete frames, especially as the number of stories increases. This research contributes to a better understanding of the behavior of RCS frames in seismic conditions.
Keywords
Probability of Collapse
Seismic Intensity Index
Incremental Dynamic Analyses
RCS Frames
Fragility Curves

Subjects

[1] Chen, C. H., Lai, W. C., Cordova, P., Deierlein, G. G., & Tsai, K. C. (2004). Pseudo-dynamic test of full-scale RCS frame: part I-design, construction, testing. In Structures 2004: Building on the Past, Securing the Future (pp. 1-15).‏
[2] Noguchi, H., & Uchida, K. (2004). Finite element method analysis of hybrid structural frames with reinforced concrete columns and steel beams. Journal of Structural Engineering, 130 (2), 328-335.
[3] Liang, X., & Parra-Montesinos, G. J. (2004). Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete column-steel beam subassemblies and frame systems. Journal of Structural Engineering, 130 (2), 310-319.‏
[4] Li, W., Li, Q. N., Jiang, W. S., & Jiang, L. (2011). Seismic performance of composite reinforced concrete and steel moment frame structures–state-of-the-art. Composites Part B: Engineering, 42 (2), 190-206.‏
[5] Li, W., Li, Q. N., & Jiang, W. S. (2012). Parameter study on composite frames consisting of steel beams and reinforced concrete columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 77, 145-162.‏
[6] Deierlein, G. G., Sheikh, T. M., Yura, J. A., & Jirsa, J. O. (1989). Beam-column moment connections for composite frames: Part 2. Journal of Structural Engineering, 115 (11), 2877-2896.‏
[7] Parra-Montesinos, G., & Wight, J. K. (2000). Seismic response of exterior RC column-to-steel beam connections.    Journal of structural engineering, 126 (10), 1113-1121.‏
[8] Alizadeh, S., Attari, N. K., & Kazemi, M. T. (2013). The seismic performance of new detailing for RCS connections. Journal of constructional steel research, 91, 76-88.‏
[9] D. Kathuria, H. Yoshikawa, S. Nishimoto, G.G. Deierlein, S. Kawamoto. (2015). Design of Composite RCS Special Moment Frames. John A.Blume earthquake engineering center department of civil & environmental engineering Stanford university.
[10] Mirghaderi, S. R., Eghbali, N. B., & Ahmadi, M. M. (2016). Moment-connection between continuous steel beams and reinforced concrete column under cyclic loading. Journal of constructional steel research, 118, 105-119.‏
[11] Eghbali, N. B., & Mirghaderi, S. R. (2017). Experimental investigation of steel beam to RC column connection via            a through-plate. Journal of constructional steel research, 133, 125-140.‏
[12] American Institute of Steel Construction. (2002). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings (No. 2). American Institute of Steel Construction.‏
[13] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (2022). Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures (ASCE7-22). American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA.
[14] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). (2022). Specification for Structural Steel Buildings         (ANSI/AISC360-22), American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, USA.
[15] American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2019). Building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI318-19). American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
[16] Giberson, M. F. (1967). The response of nonlinear multi-story structures subjected to earthquake excitation (Doctoral dissertation, California Institute of technology).
[17] Ibarra, L. F., Medina, R. A., & Krawinkler, H. (2005). Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics, 34 (12), 1511-1489.
[18] Altoontash, A. (2004). Simulation and damage models for performance assessment of reinforced concrete beam-column joints. Stanford university.
[19] Giuffrè, A. (1970). Il comportamento del cemento armato per sollecitazioni cicliche di forte intensità. Giornale del Genio Civile.
[20] Menegotto, M. (1973). Method of analysis for cyclically loaded RC plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under combined normal force and bending. In Proc. of IABSE Symposium on Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well Defined Repeated Loads, 1973.
[21] Filippou, F. C., Popov, E. P., & Bertero, V. V. (1983). Effects of bond deterioration on hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete joints.
[22] Scott, B. D., Park, R., & Priestley, M. J. (1982). Stress-strain behavior of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. In Journal Proceedings (Vol. 79, No. 1, pp. 27-13).
[23] Paulay, T., & Priestley, M. N. (1992). Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings (Vol. 768).              New York: Wiley.
[24] Malley, J. O., Dierlein, G., Krawinkler, H., Maffei, J., Pourzanjani, M., Wallace, J., & Heintz, J. (2010). Modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings. Applied Technology Council.
[25] Haselton, C. B., & Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. (2008). Beam-column element model calibrated for predicting flexural response leading to global collapse of RC frame buildings. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
[26] Lignos, D. G., & Krawinkler, H. (2011). Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading. Journal of Structural Engineering, 137 (11), 1302-1291.
[27] Haselton, C. B., Goulet, C. A., Mitrani-Reiser, J., Beck, J. L., Deierlein, G. G., Porter, K. A., ... & Taciroglu, E. (2008). An assessment to benchmark the seismic performance of a code-conforming reinforced-concrete moment-frame building. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
[28] Ibarra, L. F., & Krawinkler, H. (2005). Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations. Berkeley,              CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
[29] FEMA-P695 (2009). Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors. APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL 201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 Redwood City, California. 94, 103, 140, 147.
[30] Vamvatsikos, D. (2002). Seismic performance, capacity and reliability of structures as seen through incremental dynamic analysis. Stanford University.

  • Receive Date 03 September 2023
  • Revise Date 30 November 2023
  • Accept Date 01 January 2024