Probabilistic assessment of residual drift demands in steel moment frames with masonry infills

Bazregari, Seyed Alireza; Yakhchalian, Mansoor

doi:10.22065/jsce.2024.429832.3298

Probabilistic assessment of residual drift demands in steel moment frames with masonry infills

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Seyed Alireza Bazregari ¹

Mansoor Yakhchalian ²

¹ Master of Science, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran

² Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran

10.22065/jsce.2024.429832.3298

Abstract

Masonry infills are always considered as non-structural elements, and are neglected in structural modeling. However, observations from past earthquakes indicate that if details for separating masonry infills from structure are not used, infills affect the seismic performance of structure and their influence cannot be neglected. Moreover, using infills in all the stories of a structure except the first one that is common due to commercial or architectural purposes may cause the soft story phenomenon. Residual drift is an important criterion for evaluating post-earthquake performance of structures. To the best knowledge of the authors, residual drift performance of steel moment resisting frames (MRFs) with infills has not been assessed probabilistically. In this study, the residual drift performance of 3- and 9-story steel MRFs with masonry infills assuming two infill configurations of fully infilled and open ground story was investigated and compared with that of bare MRFs. OpenSees software was employed for creating nonlinear models of the structures and infills were simulated using single compression-only struts. The conventional method of modeling Rayleigh damping in the literature does not account for the severe elongation of the fundamental period of structure after the failure of infills. Rayleigh damping was modeled using the conventional method and a modified method, which considers the severe elongation of fundamental period due failure of infills, and responses obtained from the two methods were compared. Incremental dynamics analyses were performed, and the residual drift risk of the structures was assessed assuming four residual drift levels. Results show that positive effects of infills on the residual drift performance of the structures decreases in higher levels of residual drift due to the failure of infills. It was observed that using the open ground story configuration of infills causes soft story phenomenon. Furthermore, the conventional method of modeling damping underestimates residual drift responses.

Keywords

Probabilistic assessment

residual drift

masonry infills

Rayleigh damping

single-strut model

incremental dynamic analysis

Subjects

Structural and Earthquake Engineering

[1] Adalier, K. and Aydingun, O. (2001). Structural engineering aspects of the June 27, 1998 Adana–Ceyhan (Turkey) earthquake. Engineering Structures, 23 (4), 343-355.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(00)00046-8.

[2] Sezen, H., Whittaker, A. S., Elwood, K. J. and Mosalam, K. M. (2003). Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the August 17, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake, and seismic design and construction practise in Turkey. Engineering Structures, 25 (1), 103-114.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00121-9.

[3] Doǧangün, A. (2004). Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the May 1, 2003 Bingöl Earthquake in Turkey. Engineering Structures, 26 (6), 841-856.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.02.005.

[4] Zhao, B., Taucer, F. and Rossetto, T. (2009). Field investigation on the performance of building structures during the 12 May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China. Engineering Structures, 31 (8), 1707-1723.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.02.039.

[5] Ricci, P., De Luca, F. and Verderame, G. M. (2011). 6th April 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, Italy: reinforced concrete building performance. Bulletin of earthquake engineering, 9, 285-305.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-010-9204-8.

[6] Romão, X., Costa, A. A., Paupério, E., Rodrigues, H., Vicente, R., Varum, H. and Costa, A. (2013). Field observations and interpretation of the structural performance of constructions after the 11 May 2011 Lorca earthquake. Engineering Failure Analysis, 34, 670-692.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.01.040.

[7] Furtado, A., Rodrigues, H., Arêde, A. and Varum, H. (2021). A review of the performance of infilled rc structures in recent earthquakes. Applied Sciences, 11 (13), 5889.‏ https://doi.org/10.3390/app11135889.

[8] Crisafulli, F. J., Carr, A. J. and Park, R. (2000). Analytical modelling of infilled frame structures: A general review. Bulletin of the New Zealand society for earthquake engineering, 33 (1), 30-47.‏ https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.33.1.30-47.

[9] Asteris, P. G., Antoniou, S. T., Sophianopoulos, D. S. and Chrysostomou, C. Z. (2011). Mathematical macromodeling of infilled frames: state of the art. Journal of Structural Engineering, 137 (12), 1508-1517.‏ https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000384.

[10] Nicola, T., Leandro, C., Guido, C. and Enrico, S. (2015). Masonry infilled frame structures: state-of-the-art review of numerical modelling. Earthquakes and structures, 8 (1), 225-251.‏ https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.8.1.225.

[11] Di Trapani, F., Macaluso, G., Cavaleri, L, ans Papia, M. (2015). Masonry infills and RC frames interaction: literature overview and state of the art of macromodeling approach. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 19 (9), 1059-1095.‏ https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2014.996671.

[12] FEMA. (2018). Seismic performance assessment of buildings volume 1-methodology. FEMA P-58-1. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[13] Ruiz-Garcia, J. and Miranda, E. (2010). Probabilistic estimation of residual drift demands for seismic assessment of multi-story framed buildings. Engineering Structures, 32 (1), 11-20.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.08.010.

[14] Kitayama, S. and Constantinou, M. C. (2016). Probabilistic collapse resistance and residual drift assessment of buildings with fluidic self‐centering systems. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 45 (12), 1935-1953.‏ https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2733.

[15] Kitayama, S. and Constantinou, M. C. (2018). Seismic performance of buildings with viscous damping systems designed by the procedures of ASCE/SEI 7-16. Journal of Structural Engineering, 144 (6), 04018050.‏ https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002048.

[16] Yahyazadeh, A. and Yakhchalian, M. (2018). Probabilistic residual drift assessment of SMRFs with linear and nonlinear viscous dampers. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 148, 409-421.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.05.031.

[17] Roshanfekr Rad, Z., Ghobadi, M. S. and Yakhchalian, M. (2019). Probabilistic seismic collapse and residual drift assessment of smart buildings equipped with shape memory alloy connections. Engineering Structures, 197, 109375.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109375.

[18] Rahgozar, N., Pouraminian, M., and Rahgozar, N. (2021). Reliability-based seismic assessment of controlled rocking steel cores. Journal of Building Engineering, 44, 102623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102623.

[19] Yakhchalian, M. and Yakhchalian, M. (2023). Gravity framing and composite action effects on residual drifts of steel SMFs. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 211, 108167.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2023.108167.

[20] Personeni, S., Di Pilato, M., Palermo, A. and Pampanin, S. (2008). Numerical investigations on the seismic response of masonry infilled steel frames. In: The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Beijing, 12-17.‏

[21] Huang, X., Zhou, Z., Hua, K., Guo, C., Zhu, D. and Xia, T. (2018). Influence of infill configurations on seismic responses of steel self‐centering moment resisting frames. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 27 (10), e1474.‏ https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1474.

[22] Di Sarno, L., Wu, J. R., Gutiérrez-Urzúa, F., Freddi, F., D'Aniello, M., Kwon, O. S., Bousias, S. and Dolšek, M. (2020). Dynamic response of existing steel frames with masonry infills under multiple earthquakes. In: XI International Conference on Structural Dynamics. Athens, 3671-3685.

[23] Huang, X., Zhou, Z. and Wang, Y. (2021). Investigation of the seismic behaviour of masonry infilled self-centring beam moment frames using a new infill material model. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 19, 4887-4910.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01150-9.

[24] SAC Joint Venture. (1994). Proceedings of the invitational workshop on steel seismic issues. Report No. SAC, 94-01.‏ Los Angeles, California.

[25] FEMA. (2000). State of the art report on systems performance of steel moment frames subject to earthquake ground shaking. FEMA-355C. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[26] Wu, J. R. and Di Sarno, L. (2023). A machine-learning method for deriving state-dependent fragility curves of existing steel moment frames with masonry infills. Engineering Structures, 276, 115345.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.115345.

[27] ASCE. (2010). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI 7-10. Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers.

[28] McKenna, F., Fenves, G. L. and Scott, M. H. (2015). Open system for earthquake engineering simulation. Berkeley, California: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. https://opensees.berkeley.edu.

[29] Ibarra, L. F. and Krawinkle, H. (2005). Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations. PEER Report 2005-06. Berkeley, California: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.

[30] Haselton, C. B. and Deierlein, G. G. (2007). Assessing Seismic Collapse Safety of Modern Reinforced Concrete Moment-Frame Buildings. PEER Report 2007-08. Berkeley, California: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.

[31] Lignos, D. G. and 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), 1291-1302.‏ https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000376.

[32] Seo, C. Y., Karavasilis, T. L., Ricles, J. M. and Sause, R. (2014). Seismic performance and probabilistic collapse resistance assessment of steel moment resisting frames with fluid viscous dampers. Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics, 43 (14), 2135-2154.‏ https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2440.

[33] Liberatore, L. and Decanini, L. D. (2011). Effect of infills on the seismic response of high-rise RC buildings designed as bare according to Eurocode 8. Ingegneria sismica, 3, 7-23.‏

[34] Mohammad Noh, N., Liberatore, L., Mollaioli, F. and Tesfamariam, S. (2017). Modelling of masonry infilled RC frames subjected to cyclic loads: State of the art review and modelling with OpenSees. Engineering Structures, 150, 599-621.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.07.002.

[35] Stylianidis, K. C. (2012). Experimental investigation of masonry infilled R/C frames. The Open Construction & Building Technology Journal, 6, 194-212.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874836801206010194.

[36] Chopra, A. K. (2020). Dynamics of structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering. 5th edition. Harlow, Essex: Pearson.

[37] Hashemi, A., and Mosalam, K. M. (2006). Shake‐table experiment on reinforced concrete structure containing masonry infill wall. Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics, 35 (14), 1827-1852. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.612.

[38] Stavridis, A., Koutromanos, I., and Shing, P. B. (2012). Shake‐table tests of a three‐story reinforced concrete frame with masonry infill walls. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 41 (6), 1089-1108. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1174.

[39] Guljaš, I., Penava, D., Laughery, L., and Pujol, S. (2020). Dynamic tests of a large-scale three-story RC structure with masonry infill walls. Journal of earthquake engineering, 24 (11), 1675-1703. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2018.1475313.

[40] Di Sarno, L., Freddi, F., D'Aniello, M., Kwon, O. S., Wu, J. R., Gutiérrez-Urzúa, F., Landolfo, R., Park, J., Palios, X., and Strepelias, E. (2021). Assessment of existing steel frames: Numerical study, pseudo-dynamic testing and influence of masonry infills. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 185, 106873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2021.106873.

[41] Jeon, J. S., Park, J. H. and DesRoches, R. (2015). Seismic fragility of lightly reinforced concrete frames with masonry infills. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 44 (11), 1783-1803.‏ https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2555.

[42] Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C. A. (2002). Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics, 31 (3), 491-514.‏ https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141.

[43] Ravichandran, S. S. and Klingner, R. E. (2012). Seismic design factors for steel moment frames with masonry infills: Part 2. Earthquake spectra, 28 (3), 1205-1222.‏ https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000061.

[44] Di Sarno, L. and Wu, J. R. (2020). Seismic assessment of existing steel frames with masonry infills. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 169, 106040.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.106040.

[45] Jamshidiha, H. R., Yakhchalian, M. and Mohebi, B. (2018). Advanced scalar intensity measures for collapse capacity prediction of steel moment resisting frames with fluid viscous dampers. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 109, 102-118.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.01.009.

[46] United States Geological Survey. [online] Available at: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ [Accessed 2023].

[47] Eads, L. (2013). Seismic collapse risk assessment of buildings: effects of intensity measure selection and computational approach. PhD Dissertation. Stanford University.‏

[48] Malhotra, P. K. (2021). Seismic analysis of structures and equipment. Sharon, Massachusetts: Springer