Seismic Vulnerability Assessment and Development of Loss Functions for Steel Structures with Khorjini Connections with Capacity Spectrum Method

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Alumni, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Earthquake Risk Management Research Center, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Sanandaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj, Iran

Abstract

The present paper focuses on the development of fragility curves and on the seismic vulnerability assessment of existing steel structural systems with a certain type of semi-rigid connection known as Khorjini (Saddle) connections. A significant number of such building type suffered from extensive damage to total collapse in 1990 Manjil (Northern Iran) M 7.4 earthquake. In this study, several variants of two-dimensional structural models with such connections including concentrical braced frames only, infilled frames only, and a combination of both, have been investigated. Three- and five-story models have been considered as they are the most common structures with Saddle connections in Iran. Development of fragility curves have been completed based on HAZUS methodology. The methodology benefits from a damage estimation approach based on the capacity spectrum method. Previous studies have proved that the methodology adopted in HAZUS documents is applicable in risk assessment studies. The methodology requires an inelastic demand spectrum as well as the capacity curve of the structure presented in Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectrum (ADRS) format. The former is derived by reducing elastic design spectral ordinates to account for hysteretic damping, while the latter is obtained from nonlinear static (pushover) analysis of the nonlinear model of the structural system. For the design spectrum, the NEHRP acceleration spectra at two levels, 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (level 1) and 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (level 2) were utilized. Nonlinear models of the buildings are constructed in OpenSees platform utilizing nonlinear beam-column elements with their plasticity behavior concentrated at both ends of the elements (zero length nonlinear rotational springs). Saddle connections are modeled using two torsional springs to model their rotational constraining effects at beam-columns joints. Moment-rotation responses of such springs were calibrated to match available experimental results with similar connection details considered in this study and in relevant literatures. Moreover, all infill panels are modeled using equivalent compression struts based on the current acceptable approaches found in reference literature. Performance points of the structures are found by intersecting the demand spectrum with the capacity curve of the structure. The final output of the HAZUS methodology is the fragility curve of the structure, which depicts the probability of exceedance of certain levels of drift-based performance levels according to peak ground acceleration (PGA) values. Nevertheless, uncertainties are incorporated in the fragility curves development process. Results show that the probability of exceedance of Immediate Occupancy (IO), Life Safety (LS) and Collapse Prevention (CP) performance levels in 3-story models subjected to the level 1 earthquake (475 return period) are, respectively, 50%, 23% and 12%; while the corresponding values for the level 2 earthquake (2475 values) are 87%, 70% and 56%, respectively. For the 5-story models, the probabilities are 64%, 29% and 16% for the level 1 earthquake and 96%, 81% and 67% for level 2 earthquake. Due to such high levels of vulnerabilities, seismic retrofitting of such existing buildings in the city of Tehran is absolutely essential.

Keywords


  1. Moghadam, H. (2003) Earthquake Engineering: Fundamentals and Applications. Second Edition. Farahang Press, Tehran (in Persian).
  2. Karami, R. and Moghadam, H. (1991) Mechnaical Properties of Saddle Connections. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology University, Tehran, Iran (in Persian).
  3. Tahooni, Sh. and Farjoodi, J. (1992) Study on Rigidity of Saddle Connections. Technical Report, Housing Foundation of Islamic Revolution, Tehran, Iran (in Persian).
  4. Fathi, M. and Aghakoochak, A.A. (1997) Investigation of Nonlinear Dynamic Behavior of Frames with Saddle Connections under Earthquake Forces. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
  5. Ghordati-Amiri, G.R., Behnamfar, F. and Azad, H. (2008) Seismic Performance Levels of Steel Braced Frames with Saddle Connections. Journal of Structure and Steel, 4(2), 71-86 (in Persian).
  6. Moghadam, H. (2002) Performance of Conventional Buildings in Changooreh-Avaj Earthquake and Retrofitting Methods. Lessons from Changooreh-Avaj Earthquake (Tehran), July 23. Pp. 88-91 (in Persian).
  7. Amiri, H.R. and Aghakoochak, A.A. (2004) Performance Analysis of Steel Structures with Saddle Connections using Capacity Spectrum Method. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran (in Persian).
  8. Gholipour, Y., Bozorgnia, Y., Rahnama, M., Berberian M., Ghoreishi, M., Talebian, N., Shaja-Taheri, J. and Shafeei, A. (2001) Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis: Phase I, Greater Tehran Regions. Tehran University, Tehran, Iran.

 

  1. HAZUS-MH. (2003) Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology. Earthquake Model, HAZUS-MH MR1, Technical Manual. Washington, DC.
  2. FEMA (2009) Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors: FEMA P695. Prepared by Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Redwood City, CA.
  3. ATC-40 (1996) Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Buildings. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA.
  4. FEMA (2000) Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment Frame Buildings: FEMA 350. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
  5. FEMA (2000) Pre-standard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings: FEMA 356. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
  6. Calvi, G.M., Bolognini, D. and Penna, A. (2004) Seismic Performance of Masonry-infilled R.C. Frames: benefits of slight reinforcement. Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Sísmica, Guimarães.
  7. Braz-César, M.T., Oliveira, D. and Barros, R.C. (2008) Comparison of Cyclic Response of Reinforced Concrete Infilled Frames with Experimental Results. The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, Oct. 12-17.
  8. Schneider, S.P., Zagers, B.R. and Abrams, D.P. (1998) Lateral Strength of Steel Frames with Masonry Infills Having large openings. Journal of Structural Engineering, 124(8), 896-904.
  9. BHRC (2015) Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings: Standard No. 2800. Fourth Edition. Road, Housing and Urban Development Research Center, Tehran.
  10. Building Seismic Safety Council (2004) NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures: FEMA 450-Part 1-Provisions, Washington, DC.
  11. Mc-Kenna, F., Fenves, G.L., Scott, M.H. and Jeremic, B. (2000). Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees) [Online]. Available: www.opensees.berkeley.edu [2013, March 1].
  12. Giuffre, A. and Pinto, P.E. (1970) Il Comportam-ento Del Cemento Armato Per Sollecitazioni Cicliche di Forte Intensita. Giornale del Genio Civile, Fascicolo 5, Istituto di Tecnica Delle Costruzioni, Facolta Di Architettura, Universita Degli Studi di Roma.
  13. Amiri, H.R. and Aghakoochak, A.A. (2012) Experimental Study on Cyclic Behavior of Conventional Saddle Connections and Acceptance Criteria. Journal of Structure and Steel, 7(9), 79-96 (in Persian).
  14. Ibarra, L.F., Medina, R.A. and Krawinkler, H. (2005) Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34(12), 1489-1511.
  15. Crisafulli, F., Carr, A., 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.
  16. Hendry, A.W. (1990) Structural Masonry. First Edition. Macmillan Education Ltd, London, England.
  17. Vice Presidency for Strategic Planning and Supervision (2007) Instruction for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Unreinforced Masonry Buildings: Technical Report No. 376.
  18. Aghakoochak, A.A., and Veshkini, P. (2003) Experimental Study of Ductility of Steel Frames with Saddle Connections. Engineering Journal of Modares, 14, 15-27 (in Persian).
  19. Clark, P., Frank, K., Krawinkler, H., and Shaw, R. (1997) Protocol for Fabrication, Inspection, Testing, and Documentation of Beam-Column Connection Tests and Other Experimental Specimens. Technical Report No. AC/BD-97/02, SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, CA.
  20. Kiani, A. (2015) Urban Seismic Risk Modelling with Emphasis on Fragility Curve Development for Estimating Losses to Actual Urban Buildings.D. Thesis: International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (in Persian).