Seismic Design of Diagonal Steel Structures Using Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method

Ghorreshi, Ehsan; Mansoori, Mohammad Reza; Hosseini, Mir Hamid

doi:10.22065/jsce.2024.473965.3498

Seismic Design of Diagonal Steel Structures Using Life Cycle Cost Analysis Method

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Ehsan Ghorreshi

Mohammad Reza Mansoori

Mir Hamid Hosseini

Department of Civil Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

10.22065/jsce.2024.473965.3498

Abstract

Life cycle cost analysis and performance-based design are two complementary approaches in structural engineering that are closely related. Performance-based design sets specific goals and requirements for the performance of structures, including resistance to various forces and improvement of durability and sustainability. On the other hand, life cycle cost analysis evaluates the total costs associated with a structure over its entire lifespan, from construction to decommissioning. By combining these two approaches, it is possible to design structures that meet functional requirements while also being economically optimized. Diagonal structural systems are particularly appealing due to their aesthetic and structural qualities. Since life cycle cost analysis has been less explored in the context of diagonal structures, this study focuses on the seismic design of steel structures with diagonal systems, incorporating life cycle cost considerations. The analysis investigates weight, drift, acceleration, and diagonal section types under different damage scenarios. Numerical modeling and analysis were conducted using OPENSEES software, with nonlinear dynamic analysis performed using 22 pairs of far-field earthquake records to derive fragility curves and calculate life cycle costs.The results demonstrate that by changing the diagonal members from W-section to HSS and slightly increasing the weight of the structure, the collapse capacity increases by an average of 2.37 times. Additionally, the life cycle cost analysis reveals that the initial costs calculated for the structure under prescriptive code-based methods are lower than the actual costs required to achieve the desired performance level. This research presents a comprehensive and innovative approach to the seismic design of diagonal structures, integrating life cycle cost analysis, optimal section selection, and precise evaluation of structural and economic performance.

Keywords

Life cycle cost

Nonlinear dynamic analysis

Diagrid structural system

Performance-based design

Steel Structure

Subjects

Structural and Earthquake Engineering

[1] Zhang, B., Li, H., & Ke, K. (2023). New Advances in High-Performance Steel and Composite Structures under Extreme Loads. Materials Journal, MDPI.

[2] Hu, F., Li, H.(2024). Advances in Steel Structures: Testing, Modelling and Design. Buildings Special Issue, MDPI.

[3] Li, J., Wang, X., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Recent Advances in Performance-Based Seismic Design. Journal of Structural Engineering, 149(6), 04023100.

[4] Wang, Z., & Adli, M. (2023). Displacement-based Design in Performance-Based Seismic Design. Seismic Design Review, 21(1), 102-115.

[5] Dong, H., Zhang, Y., & Li, S. (2024). Hybrid Approaches in Performance-Based Seismic Design. Engineering Structures, 281, 114-128.

[6] Gerin, P., & Zhai, X. (2023). Implementation of Performance-Based Seismic Design in Bridge Infrastructure in Seismic Zones. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 50(4), 578-589.

[7] Rafi, M., & Adli, M. (2023). Performance Objectives in Seismic Design: Life Safety and Beyond. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 30(3), 456-469.

[8] Noureldin, M., & Kim, J. (2023). Simplified Life Cycle Cost Estimation of Low-Rise Steel Buildings Using Fundamental Period. Sustainability, 15(3), 2706.

[9] Vázquez-Lopez, M., et al. (2024). Life cycle cost analysis of multi-hazard resistant buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering, 150(4), 0602304.

[10] Mahmoud, M., & Cheng, L. (2023). Probabilistic framework for life cycle cost evaluation of structural designs. Engineering Structures, 278, 114128.

[11] Cutfield, J., et al. (2023). Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Base-Isolated Steel Braced Frames. Structural Safety, 97, 101342.

[12] Plevris, V. and Mitropoulou, M. and Lagaros, N. (2012). Structural Seismic Design Optimization and Earthquake Engineering: Formulations and Applications, 1-22.

[13] Baker, W. and Besjak, C. and Sarkisian, M. and Lee, P. and Doo, C. (2010). Proposed methodology to determine seismic performance factors for steel diagrid framed systems. CTBUH technical paper, Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, Chicago, Illinois.

[14] Asadi, E. and Adeli, H. (2018). Nonlinear Behavior and Design of Mid-To-Highrise Diagrid Structures in Seismic Regions. Engineering Journal, 55, 161-180.

[15] Kim, J. and Lee, Y. (2012). Seismic Performance Evaluation of Diagrid System Buildings. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 21(10), 736–749.

[16] Boake, T. (2014). Diagrid Structures: Systems, Connections and Details, Basel, 77–93.

[17] Mele, E. and Toreno, M. and Brandonisio, G. and Luca, A. (2014). Diagrid structures for tall buildings: case studies and design considerations. Struct Design Tall Spec Build, 23(2), 124–145.

[18] Asadi, E. and Adeli, H. (2018). Seismic performance factors for low- to mid-rise steel diagrid structural systems. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 27(15), e1505.

[19] American Institute of Steel Construction, (2016). ANSI/AISC360-16,Specification for structural steel buildings, Chicago.

[20] Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, (2017). OpenSees, Open system for earthquake engineering simulation., Berkeley, California. Available at: http://opensees.berkeley.edu/.

[21] Menegotto, M. and Pinto, P. (1973). Method of analysis for cyclically loaded R.C. plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under combined normal force and bending. In: IABSE symposium on the resistance and ultimate deformability of structures acted on by well-defined repeated loads. Zurich.

[22] Uriz, P. and Filippou, F. and Mahin, S. (2008). Model for cyclic inelastic buckling of steel braces. Journal of Structural Engineering, 134(4), 619–628.

[23] Rofooei, F. and Seyedkazemi, A. (2020). Evaluation of the seismic performance factors for steel diagrid structural systems using FEMA P-695 and ATC-19 procedures. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 18(7), 4873–4910.

[24] Federal Emergency Management Agency, (2009). FEMAP-695, Quantification of building seismic performance factors. ATC-63 report, Washington, D.C.

[25] Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, CA. (2002). Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31(3), 491–514.

[26] Hsiao, P.C. (2012). Seismic Performance Evaluation of Concentrically Braced Frames. Ph.D. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

[27] Department Security, U. S., and Federal Emergency Agency. (2020). HAZUS, Estimated Earthquake Losses for the United States.

[28] Yun, S. and Hamburger, R. and Cornell, C. and Foutch, D. (2002). Seismic Performance Evaluation for Steel Moment Frames. Journal of Structural Engineering-ASCE, 128(4), 534–545.

[29] Petersen, M. and Frankel, A. and Harmsen, S. and Mueller, C. and Haller, K. and Wheeler, R. and Wesson, R. and Zeng, Y. and Boyd, O. and Perkins, D. and Luco, N. and Field, E. and Wills, C. and Rukstales, K. (2008). Documentation for the 2008 update of the United States national seismic hazard maps. Open-File Report2008–1128. US Geological Survey.

[30] Baker, J. (2015). Efficient Analytical Fragility Function Fitting Using Dynamic Structural Analysis. Earthquake Spectra, 31(1), 579–599.