Drift and rotation demands in steel frames incorporating degradation effects

Bravo‐Haro, Miguel A.; Tsitos, Antonios; Elghazouli, A.Y.

doi:10.1007/s10518-018-0389-6

Cited by 11 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both structural modelling approaches were used to carry out extensive incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) in order to examine the effects of ground motion duration by direct comparison of the structural response as subjected to the spectrally equivalent sets of short and long records. A description of the main characteristics of the MDOF and ESDOF systems is given below, while full details and design assumptions of the structures considered are available elsewhere(Bravo-Haro et al 2018;Tsitos et al 2018)…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of earthquake duration on the response of steel moment frames

Bravo‐Haro

Elghazouli

2018

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of earthquake duration on the response of steel moment frames

Bravo‐Haro

Elghazouli

2018

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although the parameters of this model were mainly derived for joints with US members and solely few European experimental data were taken into account, Tsitos et al 23 . and Bravo‐Haro et al 36 . showed the satisfactory accuracy of the modified IMK even for joints with European profiles.…”

Section: Modelling Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[31][32][33][34] The source of plasticity is expected in the ends of both beams and columns, whose hysteretic behaviour was simulated with a concentrated zero-length lumped spring implementing the Ibarra-Medina-Krawinkler (IMK) model modified by Lignos and Krawinkler 35 (see Figure 5A). Although the parameters of this model were mainly derived for joints with US members and solely few European experimental data were taken into account, Tsitos et al 23 and Bravo-Haro et al 36 showed the satisfactory accuracy of the modified IMK even for joints with European profiles. As matter of example, Figure 5B shows the hysteretic response of a joint simulated with the modified IMK model.…”

Section: Modelling Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic performance of Eurocode‐compliant ductile steel MRFs

Tartaglia

D’Aniello

Fiorino

2022

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Steel moment resisting frames (MRFs) are drift‐sensitive structures and their design is largely influenced by code requirements to limit the lateral displacements and to control the second order effects. Current and next generation of Eurocode 8 recommend different rules to verify the lateral rigidity and resistance of steel MRFs that lead to structures that are substantially different in terms of size of members and overall performance. In order to investigate the influence of the design rules on the seismic behaviour of ductile steel MRFs a parametric numerical study was carried out on 48 structures designed according to Eurocodes as well as US codes, the latter analysed as benchmark, varying the number of storeys, moment resisting spans and seismic intensity. The results of non‐linear static and dynamic analyses show that the structures complaint with current Eurocode 8 are the most expensive and characterised by the greater lateral rigidity and resistance, while MRFs designed in accordance with ASCE7 rules have the smaller profiles and the lower overstrength. The frames designed with rules of the latest version of next generation of Eurocode 8 have an intermediate behaviour even if closer to ASCE7‐compliant structures. These results are also confirmed by the probability of collapse that is smaller than the minimum value specified by EN1990 for the considered consequence class of the examined buildings.

show abstract

“…This typically requires a nonlinear numerical model and dynamic response-history analyses. Non-model-based approaches are also evolving to inform this step [6,7] in an attempt to minimize nonlinear computations. If a structure's EDPs are known for a given IM, the consequential damage can be quantified.…”

Section: Motivation and Significancementioning

confidence: 99%