Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
INTRODUCTION
815
3
2
W31067
W1000 483
4th Floor
3rd Floor
2nd Floor
A1
0
585
Roof
W310 179
W690 125
00
= 30
A5 W690 125
00
= 30
A4 W690 125
50
= 43
A3 W690 125
50
= 58
A2 W690 125
5th Floor
4th Floor
3rd Floor
2nd Floor
1st Floor
PERFORMANCE GROUPS
AND DAMAGE STATES
W760 257
W760 284
W760 284
W360 421
3.65
3.65
3.65
4.25
W690 125
Roof
5th Floor
4th Floor
3rd Floor
W360 509
3.65
b) BRBF
W690 125
W1000 483
W310 342
4.25
b) Perspective view
2nd Floor
1st Floor
4.25
3.65
3.65
W690 125
W690 125
W690 125
W690 125
Roof
W250 67
3.65
3.65
c) MRF
W690 125
5th Floor
4th Floor
W250 101
Figure 1.
building.
W310179
3.65
3.65
eters
7@9m
W310342
rs
W360 421
ete
W1000 350
5th Floor
1st Floor
3.65
9m
W200 100
braces
3.65
5@
W200 86
braces
W1000 x 350
a) CBF
4.25 meters
4 @ 3.65 meters
1
7 @ 9 meters
W200 71
braces
Roof
W310x143
W200 59
braces
W310143
W360 509
5 @ 9 meters
W200 42
braces
W310x67
W920 223
W250 67
W250 101
3.65
3.65
3.65
3.65
4.25
3rd Floor
2nd Floor
1st Floor
d) Gravity Frame
816
Table 1.
Performance
group
Name
Location
SH12
SH23
SH34
SH45
SH5R
EXTD12
EXTD23
EXTD34
EXTD45
10
EXTD5R
11
INTD12
12
INTD23
13
INTD34
14
INTD45
15
INTD5R
16
INTA2
17
INTA3
18
INTA4
19
INTA5
20
INTAR
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONT1
CONT2
CONT3
CONT4
CONT5
EQUIPR
between
levels 1 & 2
between
levels 2 & 3
between
levels 3 & 4
between
levels 4 & 5
between
levels 5 & R
between
levels 1 & 2
between
levels 2 & 3
between
levels 3 & 4
between
levels 4 & 5
between
levels 5 & R
between
levels 1 & 2
between
levels 2 & 3
between
levels 3 & 4
between
levels 4 & 5
between
levels 5 & R
below
level 2
below
level 3
below
level 4
below
level 5
below
level R
at level 1
at level 2
at level 3
at level 4
at level 5
at level R
Figure 3.
2009a).
Three finite element models of the building were created for each of the CBF, MRF and BRBF systems.
The models were developed using OpenSees (UCB
1997). Due to symmetric nature of the building,
817
Mode
Moment
resisting
frame
[seconds]
Buckling
restrained
braced frame
[seconds]
Concentrically
braced frame
[seconds]
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
1.14
0.41
0.22
0.14
0.10
0.86
0.32
0.19
0.15
0.11
0.47
0.18
0.12
0.09
0.07
Event
Year
Station
San Fernando
Tabas- Iran
Coyote Lake
Imperial Valley
Imperial Valley
Irpinia- Italy
Coalinga
Morgan Hill
N. Palm Springs
Chalfant Valley
Whittier Narrows
Loma Prieta
Northridge-01
Kobe- Japan
Chi-Chi- Taiwan
Manjil- Iran
1971
1978
1979
1979
1979
1980
1983
1984
1986
1986
1987
1989
1994
1995
1999
1990
CastaicOld Ridge Rt
Dayhook
Gilroy Array #6
El Centro Array #8
SAHOP Casa Flores
Sturno
Pleasant Valley P.P.y
Gilroy Array #4
Desert Hot Springs
BishopLADWP S. St
Santa Fe Spring
Gilroy Array #3
Pacoima Dam
Kakogawa
TCU089
Abhar
Table 4.
Event
Year
Station
San Fernando
Imperial Valley
Imperial Valley
Imperial Valley
Mammoth Lakes
Coalinga
Morgan Hill
N. Palm Springs
Chalfant Valley
Whittier Narrows
Loma Prieta
Loma Prieta
Landers
Northridge
Kobe- Japan
Manjil- Iran
Hector Mine
Chi-Chi- Taiwan
1971
1979
1979
1979
1980
1983
1984
1986
1986
1987
1989
1989
1992
1994
1995
1990
1999
1999
LAHollywood Stor FF
Calexico Fire Station
El Centro Array #3
Holtville Post Office
Convict Creek
Pleasant Valley
Gilroy Array #4
Desert Hot Springs
BishopLADWP S. St
GlendaleLas Palmas
Agnews State Hospital
FremontEmerson Ct.
Amboy
LABaldwin Hills
Kakogawa
Abhar
Amboy
TCU122
818
Table 5.
Event
Imperial Valley
Imperial Valley
Victoria- Mexico
Irpinia- Italy
Coalinga
Hollister
Chalfant Valley
Chalfant Valley
Whittier Narrows
Landers
Big Bear
Northridge
Northridge
Hector Mine
Denali- Alaska
Chi-Chi- Taiwan
Chi-Chi- Taiwan
Year
1979
1979
1980
1980
1983
1986
1986
1986
1987
1992
1992
1994
1994
1999
2002
1999
1999
Hazard
Building
du2
[%]
du3
[%]
du4
[%]
du5
[%]
duR
[%]
2/50
MRF
CBF
BRBF
0.93
0.46
0.59
1.23
0.46
0.69
1.1
0.5
0.8
1.2
0.39
0.82
1.05
0.27
0.43
10/50
MRF
CBF
BRBF
0.5
0.26
0.4
0.66
0.26
0.44
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.64
0.24
0.52
0.55
0.16
0.29
40/50
MRF
CBF
BRBF
0.23
0.11
0.19
0.28
0.11
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.31
0.1
0.21
0.27
0.07
0.13
Table 7.
Station
Plaster City
El Centro Array #3
SAHOP Casa Flores
Rionero In Vulture
ParkfieldStone Corral
Hollister Diff Array #3
Convict Creek
Long Valley Dam
SylmarSayre St
LAN Westmoreland
Featherly ParkMaint
ComptonCastlegate
MalibuP. Dume Sch
Whitewater Trout Farm
TAPS Pump Station #09
CHY111
TCU076
ag
Hazard Building [g]
a3
[g]
a4
[g]
a5
[g]
aR
[g]
MRF
CBF
BRBF
0.4 0.64
0.49 0.8
0.49 0.65
0.7
1
0.7
0.67
1.13
0.71
0.6
1.25
0.62
1.11
1.73
0.94
10/50
MRF
CBF
BRBF
0.21 0.31
0.22 0.43
0.22 0.35
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.36
0.65
0.4
0.33
0.75
0.45
0.56
0.99
0.64
40/50
MRF
CBF
BRBF
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.18
0.29
0.17
0.17
0.32
0.19
0.27
0.45
0.29
0.14
0.18
0.15
Table 8.
ratio.
Hazard
Building
du2
[%]
du3
[%]
du4
[%]
du5
[%]
duR
[%]
2/50
MRF
CBF
BRBF
0.21
0.13
0.2
0.29
0.12
0.26
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.23
0.07
0.22
0.22
0.05
0.09
10/50
MRF
CBF
BRBF
0.16
0.06
0.1
0.22
0.06
0.15
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.21
0.05
0.16
0.16
0.03
0.05
40/50
MRF
CBF
BRBF
0.05
0.03
0.06
0.07
0.03
0.07
0.1
0
0.1
0.07
0.03
0.06
0.06
0.02
0.03
a2
[g]
2/50
Table 6.
the entire building is then summed over all performance groups. The process is repeated a large
number of times to quantify the distribution of the
repair costs at different levels of earthquake shaking intensities. Figure 5 shows the discrete cumulative distribution functions of the total repair costs
for the three systems at each of the three hazard
819
Table 9.
ag
Hazard Building [g]
a2
[g]
a3
[g]
a4
[g]
a5
[g]
aR
[g]
2/50
MRF
CBF
BRBF
0.11
0.24
0.15
0.21
0.32
0.18
10/50
MRF
CBF
BRBF
0.1
0.17
0.09
0.15
0.2
0.12
40/50
MRF
CBF
BRBF
0.02 0.03 0
0.03
0.02 0.03 0.1 0.07
0.02 0.03 0
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.04
0.05
0.1
0.07
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Figure 5.
levels considered. The result shows that at the lowest shaking intensity (40/50) hazard level, the MRF
and BRBF have the lowest median repair cost. As
the shaking intensity increases to 10/50 hazard levels, all three systems have roughly the same median
repair cost. As the shaking intensity increases to
2/50 hazard level, the BRBF and CBF have roughly
the same median repair costs while the MRF has
the highest repair cost.
8
This paper presents a detailed performance assessment of a five-story office building designed
using three options of steel seismic force resisting
systems. This includes the concentrically braced
frame, buckling restrained braced frame and
moment resisting frame. The purpose of the investigation was to understand the relative seismic performance of these systems by comparing the initial
material use and the post-earthquake repair costs
at different levels of shaking intensities. The results
provide a quantitative measure for engineers and
other stakeholders to make an informed decision
to select the best system to achieve the design
objective. The advent of performance-based
REFERENCES
Astaneh-Asl, A. 2005. Design of shear tab connections
for gravity and seismic loads, SteelTips, Structural
Steel Educational Council.
ATC. 2007. Development of next-generation
performance-based seismic design procedures for new
and existing buildings, Applied Technology Council,
Redwood city, CA. http://www.atcouncil.org/atc-58.
shtml.
Cochran, Michael & Honeck, William, 2004. Design of
Special Concentric Braced Frames, SteelTips, Structural Steel Education Council.
CSA S16-09. 2010. Handbook of Steel Construction,
Canadian Institute of Steel Construction, Markham,
Ontario.
820
821