Buy article PDF
The purchased file will be sent to you
via email after the payment is completed.
US$ 35
|
Earthquakes and Structures Volume 18, Number 1, January 2020 , pages 27-44 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2020.18.1.027 |
|
|
|
A comparison of three performance-based seismic design methods for plane steel braced frames |
||
Nicos A. Kalapodis, George A. Papagiannopoulos and Dimitri E. Beskos
|
||
| Abstract | ||
| This work presents a comparison of three performance-based seismic design methods (PBSD) as applied to plane steel frames having eccentric braces (EBFs) and buckling restrained braces (BRBFs). The first method uses equivalent modal damping ratios (�k)referring to an equivalent multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) linear system, which retains the mass, the elastic stiffness and responds in the same way as the original non-linear MDOF system. The second method employs modal strength reduction factors (�𝑘) resulting from the corresponding modal damping ratios. Contrary to the behavior factors of code based design methods, both �k and �k account for the first few modes of significance and incorporate target deformation metrics like inter-storey drift ratio (IDR) and local ductility as well as structural characteristics like structural natural period, and soil types. Explicit empirical expressions of �k and �k, recently presented by the present authors elsewhere, are also provided here for reasons of completeness and easy reference. The third method, developed here by the authors, is based on a hybrid force/displacement (HFD) seismic design scheme, since it combines the force-base design (FBD) method with the displacement-based design (DBD) method. According to this method, seismic design is accomplished by using a behavior factor (qh), empirically expressed in terms of the global ductility of the frame, which takes into account both non-structural and structural deformation metrics. These expressions for qh are obtained through extensive parametric studies involving non-linear dynamic analysis (NLDA) of 98 frames, subjected to 100 far-fault ground motions that correspond to four soil types of Eurocode 8. Furthermore, these factors can be used in conjunction with an elastic acceleration design spectrum for seismic design purposes. Finally, a comparison among the above three seismic design methods and the Eurocode 8 method is conducted with the aid of non-linear dynamic analyses via representative numerical examples, involving plane steel EBFs and BRBFs. | ||
| Key Words | ||
| Address | ||
| Nicos A. Kalapodis:Department of Engineering Science, University of Greenwich, Central Avenue, ME4 4TB Chatham, U.K. George A. Papagiannopoulos:School of Science and Technology, Hellenic Open University, 26335 Patras, Greece Dimitri E. Beskos:Department of Disaster Mitigation for Structures, College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, PR China Dimitri E. Beskos:Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patras, 26054 Patras, Greece | ||