مهندسی سازه و ساخت

مهندسی سازه و ساخت

تحلیل رفتار لرزه‌ای قاب‌ خمشی خرپایی ویژه دارای بخش ویژه با پیکربندی ضربدری

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان
علیرضا میرزایی 1
اباذر اصغری 2
امیررضا قیامی آزاد 3
1 دانشجوی کارشناسی‌ارشد، دانشکده مهندسی عمران، دانشکدگان فنی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
2 دانشیار، دانشکده مهندسی عمران، دانشکدگان فنی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
3 استادیار، دانشکده مهندسی عمران، دانشکدگان فنی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
10.22065/jsce.2025.518496.3704
چکیده
در این پژوهش، عملکرد لرزه‌ای سیستم قاب‌ خمشی خرپایی ویژه (STMF) با بخش ویژه ضربدری، با در نظر گرفتن اثرات تعداد طبقات و تعداد دهانه بخش ویژه، به‌صورت عددی مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفت. طراحی در محیط ETABS و تحلیل‌های غیرخطی بارافزون و تاریخچه زمانی بر اساس دستورالعمل‌های 695FEMA P و آیین‌نامه 7-22 ASCE در نرم‌افزار OpenSees انجام شد. برای این منظور، ۹ مدل با سه تیپ ارتفاع 2، 5 و 8 طبقه و سه نوع تیپ بخش ویژه به‌صورت یک، دو و سه چشمه‌ای طراحی شدند. نتایج نشان داد، ضریب اضافه مقاومت (Ω) در اکثر قاب‌ها نزدیک به مقدار ۳ پیشنهادی آیین‌نامه قرار دارد. میانگین Ω برای قاب‌های دو، پنج و هشت طبقه به‌ترتیب برابر با 6/4 ، 6/4 و 2/4 به دست آمد که عملکرد مناسب سازه‌ها را در برابر زلزله نشان داد. همچنین، افزایش تعداد چشمه‌ها در بخش ویژه موجب بهبود نسبی ضریب اضافه مقاومت شد. در تحلیل تاریخچه زمانی، مقادیر میانگین تغییرمکان جانبی کمتر از ۲ درصد و تغییرمکان پسماند کمتر از 1/0 درصد به‌دست آمد که در محدوده مجاز آیین‌نامه قرار دارند. با وجود تفاوت در تعداد چشمه‌های بخش ویژه، تفاوت قابل‌ملاحظه‌ای در تغییرمکان نهایی بین قاب‌ها دیده نشد که بیانگر سختی جانبی یکسان در قاب‎های بررسی‌شده است. همچنین، افزایش تعداد چشمه‌های بخش ویژه منجر به کاهش مصرف فولاد تا حدود ۹ تا ۱۱ درصد در قاب‌های مرتفع‌تر شد. این امر می‌تواند منجر به طراحی اقتصادی‌تر سازه‌های بلند با دهانه‌های بزرگ گردد. در مجموع، سیستم STMF با بخش ویژه ضربدری، توانایی مطلوبی در مقابله با بارهای لرزه‌ای از خود نشان داده و گزینه‌ای مناسب برای استفاده در سازه‌های با دهانه‌های وسیع به شمار می‌رود.
کلیدواژه‌ها
قاب خمشی خرپایی ویژه
ضربدری
بارافزون
تاریخچه زمانی
ضریب اضافه مقاومت
ضریب شکل‌پذیری

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Evaluation of the Seismic Behavior of Special Truss Moment Frames (STMF) with X-Braced Configuration in Special Segment

نویسندگان English

Alireza Mirzaei 1
Abazar Asghari 2
Amirreza Ghiami Azad 3
1 Master's Student, School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor, School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran
3 Assistant Professor, School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran
چکیده English

In this study, the seismic performance of the Special Truss Moment Frame (STMF) with a X-braced special segment was numerically evaluated by considering the effects of the number of stories and panels in the special segment. The models were designed in ETABS and nonlinear static (pushover) and time history analyses were conducted in OpenSees based on FEMA P-695 and ASCE 7-22 guidelines. Nine models were developed with three height levels (2, 5, and 8 stories) and three configurations of the special segment (one-, two-, and three-panel). The results indicated that the overstrength factor (Ω) for most frames was close to the ASCE-recommended value of 3. The average Ω was calculated as 4.6, 4.6, and 4.2 for the 2-, 5-, and 8-story frames, respectively, confirming the satisfactory strength performance under seismic loading. Moreover, increasing the number of panels in the special segment improved the overstrength factor. Time history analysis showed that the average inter-story drift remained below 2%, and the residual drift was less than 0.1%, both within acceptable code limits. Despite differences in the number of special segment panels, the final drifts of all frames were found to be comparable, indicating similar lateral stiffness across the models. Furthermore, adding more panels in the special segment led to a reduction in steel consumption by approximately 9% to 11% in taller frames, promoting more economical designs. Overall, The X-braced STMF showed reliable seismic performance, making it a suitable choice for long-span and high-rise structures.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Special truss moment frame
X-braced
Nonlinear Analysis
Pushover
Time history
Overstrength Factor
Ductility Factor
Drift
[1] Asghari, A., (2016). Evaluating the ductility of x-braced frames which are braced in two middle adjacent spans. Ferdowsi Civil Engineering, 27(2),pp. 57-74. https://dx.doi.org/10.22067/civil.v27i2.33325.
[2] Asghari, A., & Azimi, B., (2017). Evaluation of sensitivity of CBFs for types of bracing and story numbers. ScientiaIranica, 24(1),pp.40-52. https://dx.doi.org/10.24200/sci.2017.2375.
[3] Asghari, A., & Saharkhizan, S., (2019). Seismic design and performance evaluation of steel frames with knee-element connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 154,pp.161-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.11.011.
[4] Asghari, A., & Hosseini, S., (2024). Seismic behavior assessment of special concentrically x-Braced frame with through gusset plate. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering, pp. 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-024-01524-4.
[5] Asghari A., Gandomi Amir H., (2016). Ductility reduction factor and collapse mechanism evaluation of a new steel knee braced frame. Structure and InfrastructureEngineering, 12:2,pp. 239-255. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2015.1009123.
[6] Jalilzadeh Afshari M., Asghari A., Gholhaki M., (2019). Shear strength and stiffness enhancement of cross-stiffened steel plate shear walls. International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering 11 (2),pp. 179-193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40091-019-0224-6.
[7] Torabizadeh, A., Foyouzat, A., Asghari, A., & Mohammadi, S., (2024). Self-centering of steel braced frames equipped with Fe-SMA TADAS dampers. Smart Materials and Structures, 33(6),pp.065025.
 https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-665x/ad49f0.
[8] Asghari, A., Hosseini, S. (2024). “Seismic Behavior Assessment of Special Concentrically X-braced Frame with Through Gusset Plate”. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering,Pages1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-024-01524-4.
[9] Hadinejad, A., Asghari, A., & Marefat, M. S., (2025). Evaluation of the FEMA P695 methodology for quantification of seismic performance factors in dual steel SCBF-SMF structures. In Structures 71, pp. 108172. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2024.108172.
[10] Asghari, A. , Mirzaei, َ. and Ghiami Azad, A. (2025). Evaluation of seismic performance of Special truss moment frames (STMF) with Vierendeel special segment. Sharif Journal of Civil Engineering. doi: 10.24200/j30.2025.66262.3406.
[11] Itani, A. M., & Goel, S. C. (1991). Earthquake resistance of open web framing systems. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan.
[12] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. 1st ed. Chicago: AISC; 1997.
[13] Basha, H. S., & Goel, S. C. (1994). Seismic-resistant truss moment frames with ductile Vierendeel segment. University of Michigan.
[14] Goel, S. C., & Itani, A. M., (1994). Seismic-resistant special trussmoment frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 120(6),pp. 1781–1797.
[15] Basha, H. S., & Goel, S. C., (1995). Special truss moment frames with vierendeel middle panel. EngineeringStructures,17(5),pp.352–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-0296(95)00018-3.
[16] Chao, S.-H., & Goel, S. C., (2008). Performance-based plastic design of special truss moment frames. Engineering Journal, 45(2),pp. 127–150.
[17] Simasathien, S., Jiansinlapadamrong, C., & Chao, S.-H., (2017). Seismic behavior of special truss moment frame with double hollow structural sections as chord members. Engineering Structures, 131,pp.14–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.10.001.
[18]  Kumar, R., Sahoo, D.R., (2021). Seismic fragility of steel special truss moment frames with multiple ductile vierendeel panels. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering.2021;pp.143:106603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106603.
[19]  Jiansinlapadamrong, C., Park, K., Hooper, J., & Chao, S. H., (2019). Seismic design and performance evaluation of long-span special truss moment frames. Journal of StructuralEngineering, 145(7),pp.04019053.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002340.
[20]  Chao, S. H., Jiansinlapadamrong, C., Simasathien, S., & Okazaki, T., (2020). Full-scale testing and design of special truss moment frames for high-seismic areas. Journal of Structural Engineering, 146(3), pp.04019229. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002541.
[21] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). AISC 341–10: Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. AISC; 2010.
[22] Kumar, R., & Sahoo, D. R., (2021). Seismic fragility of steel special truss moment frames with multiple ductile vierendeel panels. Soil Dynamics and EarthquakeEngineering, 143,pp.106603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106603
[23] Askariani, S. S., Garivani, S., Hasani, M., & Hajirasouliha, I. (2021). Special truss moment frames equipped with steel slit dampers. International Journal of Steel Structures, 1-19.
[24] Kim, J., & Park, J. (2014). Design of special truss moment frames considering progressive collapse. International Journal of steel structures, 14, 331-343.
[25] Sadeghpour, M., Kalatjari, V. R., & Pahlavan, H. (2021). Numerical study of the effect of geometric arrangement of the truss on the response modification factor of the special truss moment frame (STMF). SN Applied Sciences, 3(5), 584.
[26] Kumar, R., & Sahoo, D. R. (2020). Seismic performance of high‐rise special truss moment frames with multiple Vierendeel ductile segments and high panel aspect ratios. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 29(18), e1810.
[27] Gan, D., Lu, X., Li, Y., Li, Z., & Zhou, X. (2025). Analysis and design of the multi-Vierendeel-panels steel trusses with gusset plate connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 224, 109142.
[28] Sophianopoulos, D. S., & Ntina, M. I. (2024). Investigation of the Seismic Performance of a Multi-Story, Multi-Bay Special Truss Moment Steel Frame with X-Diagonal Shape Memory Alloy Bars. Applied Sciences, 14(22), 10283.
[29] Ölmez, H. D., & Topkaya, C. (2011). A numerical study on special truss moment frames with Vierendeel openings. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 67(4), 667-677.
[30] Etabs, Integrated building design software, nonlinear version 9.7.3, in, Berkeley, California, USA, 1995.
[31] OpenSees. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation [Computer software]. (1999). Berkeley CA, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, Univ. of Berkeley.
[32] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). ASCE7-22: Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE; 2022.
[33] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). AISC 341–22: Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. AISC; 2022.
[34] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). AISC 360–22: Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. AISC; 2022.
[35] Chao, S.-H., and S. C. Goel., (2008). A modified equation for expected maximum shear strength of the special segment for design of special truss moment frames. Eng. J. 45 (2): pp.117–125.
[36] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Quantification of seismic performance factors. FEMA P695. Applied Technology Council; 2009.
[37] AISC. AISC 341–05: Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. Chicago: AISC; 2005.
[38] AISC. Specification for structural steel buildings. Chicago: AISC; 2016.
[39] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). ASCE7-16: Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE; 2016.
[40] ASCE/SEI. ASCE 41–13: Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. ASCE; 2012.

  • تاریخ دریافت 10 اردیبهشت 1404
  • تاریخ بازنگری 16 تیر 1404
  • تاریخ پذیرش 15 شهریور 1404