Seismic performance of high rise hybrid structures with moment frame configuration

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD student in Structural Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

3 Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The seismic design methods should pay special attention to the characteristics of ground motions especially in near fault. Near-field records are generally recognized by the sudden impulsive ground displacements in a short time domain in which contain large amount of kinetic energy. An important consequence of lateral displacement and story drift is the structural and non-structural damage. Many previous studies suggest that the mentioned parameters are sufficient to indicate the correlation between characteristics of the structural response and seismic risk. Framed tube system is one way to limit the movement of stories in high rise buildings. This structural system causes a similar behaviour of the whole resistant skeleton to a hollow tube, so that a significant increase is observed in lateral stiffness of the structure. In this study, the studied models are in the form of 20-story structures that are regular in plan and height. The resistant skeleton of the studied structures is designed according to the fourth edition of Standard No. 2800 as well as topics of the Iranian national building code. Based on the results obtained by conducting the nonlinear dynamic analyses, this study deals with the trend of variations in the target seismic response parameters subjected to the site-specific design spectrum according to the design provisions denoted in the Standard No. 2800. Topics and issues evaluated in this study include the lateral displacement, story drift and effect of the configuration of internal rigid frames in variation rates of the mentioned parameters. Based on the results, the maximum drift usually happened in the middle third of the structure height. Yet, the maximum response parameters of displacement and story drift were individually exposed to relative reduction and increase, regarding to replacement of the resistant skeleton from frame-tube into bundled-tube structure.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

[1] Azhdarifar, M. Ahmadi, A. and Meshkat-Dini, A. (2015). Notes on the Effects of the Variations of Skeletal Framework on the Seismic Response Characteristics of Bundled Tube Structures subjected to Near-Fault Records. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Seismology & Earthquake Engineering.Karaj, Iran: Kharazmi university.
[2] Alavi B, Krawinkler H. (2000). Consideration of near-fault ground motion effects in seismic design. In: 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (12WCEE). Auckland, New Zeland: New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering.
[3] Sucuoglu, H. Nurtug, A. (1995).Earthquake ground motion characteristics and seismic energy dissipation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 24, 1195-1213.
[4] Tarta, G. Pintea, A. (2012). Seismic evaluation of multi-storey moment-resisting steel frames with stiffness irregularities using standard and advanced pushover methods. Procedia Engineering, Vol. 40, 445–450.
[5] Alavi, B. Krawinkler, H. (2004). Behavior of moment resisting frame structures subjected to near fault ground motions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 33, 687-706.
[6] Meshkat-Dini, A. (2011). Conceptualization of Wave-Like Ground Motions during Near-Field Earthquakes accounting for Notification of Dynamic Response Parameters of High-Rise Building. Tehran, Iran: Kharazmi University, 28-35.
[7] Stafford Smith, B. (1984). Generalized method for estimating drift in high-rise structures. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE), Vol. 110, No. 7, 1549-1562.
[8] Anderson, J. C. Gurfinkel, G. (1975). Seismic behaviour of framed tubes. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 28, 145-162.
[9] Miranda, E. Kyriakides, M. Fu, Q. (2006). Development of improved intensity measures and improved shakemaps for loss estimation and emergency response. In: SMIP06 Seminar Proceedings. Toronto: California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program. PP:63-80.
[10] Aboutalebi, M. Meshkat-Dini, A. Keyvani, J. (2017). Assessment of Variation Process of Seismic Response of Hybrid Frame Tube Skeletons with Zipper Elements in Tall Buildings. In: Proceedings of the 10th National Congress on Civil Engineering. Tehran, Iran: Sharif University of Technology.
[11] Halis Gunel, M. Emre Ilgin, H. (2007). A proposal for the classification of structural systems of tall buildings. Building and Environment, Vol. 42, 2267-2675.
[12] Khalili, S. Meshkat-Dini, A. Keyvani, J. (2016). Nonlinear Dynamic Response of Hybrid Rigid Frame Skeletons in Near Fault. In: 4th National Congress on Civil Engineering, Architecture and Urban Management. Tehran, Iran: Shahid Beheshti University.
[13] Road, Housing and Urban Development research Center, (2014). Iranian Standard No. 2800. Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings. Tehran, Iran.
[14] Road, Housing and Urban Development research Center, (2014). Iranian national building code: Design Loads for Buildings- Division 6. Tehran, Iran: Publisher tosseh iran.
[15] Road, Housing and Urban Development research Center, (2014). Iranian national building code: Design and Construction of Steel Structures – Division 10. Tehran, Iran: Publisher tosseh iran.
[16] Sakai, Y. Yoshioka, S. Koketsu, K. et al. (2001). Investigation on indices of representing destructive power of strong ground motions to estimate damage to buildings based on the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake, Taiwan. Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering, Vol. 549, 43–50.
[17] Rota, M. Penna, A. Strobbia, CL. (2008). Processing Italian damage data to derivetypological fragility curves. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 28, 933–947.
[18] Malhotra P.K. (1999). Response of buildings to near-field pulse-like ground motions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 28, 1309-1326.
[19] Kurama, Y. C. Farrow, K. T. (2003). Ground motion scaling methods for different site conditions and structure characteristics. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 32, 2425-2450.
[20] Federal Emergency Management Agency, (1998).  FEMA 356.
[21] Computers and Structures, Inc. (2000). Analysis reference manual for Sap2000. Berkeley-California, USA.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 09 January 2017
  • Revise Date: 19 June 2017
  • Accept Date: 24 June 2017

Share

How to cite

Statistics