Search published articles


Showing 2 results for Inelastic Behavior

E. Wahyuni, Y. Tethool,
Volume 13, Issue 2 (6-2015)
Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine the effect of vierendeel panel width and vertical truss spacing ratio in an inelastic behavior of the STF system due to earthquake loads. The STF system is applied to a six-storey building that serves as apartments [2]. The STF system is used in the building in the transverse direction (N-S direction), while in the longitudinal direction (W-E direction) the building system uses the special moment resisting frame. The structural behavior was evaluated using nonlinear pushover and time history analyses. The results showed that by increasing the ratio of vierendeel panel width and vertical truss spacing, the ductility of the structure was increased. Based on the performance evaluation, the ratio of the vierendeel panel width and vertical truss spacing on the STF buildings that provided satisfactory performance was more or equal to 1.6. The ultimate drift obtained from non-linear time history analysis was smaller than the pushover analysis. This result showed that the static nonlinear pushover analysis was quite conservative in predicting the behavior of the six-storey building in an inelastic condition.
A. Reyes-Salazar, E. Bojorquez, J.l. Rivera-Salas, A. Lopez-Barraza, H.e. Rodriguez-Lozoya,
Volume 13, Issue 3 (9-2015)
Abstract

The linear and nonlinear responses of steel buildings with perimeter moment resisting frames (PMRFs) are estimated and compared to those of equivalent buildings with spatial moment resisting frames (SMRFs). The equivalent models with SMRFs are designed by using an approximated procedure in such a way that, not only their fundamental period, total mass and lateral stiffness are fairly the same as those of the corresponding buildings with PMRFs, but also other characteristics to make the two structural "as equivalent" as possible. The numerical study indicates that the interstory shears of the PMRFs building may be significantly larger than those of the SMRFs building. The main reasons for this are that the buildings with PMRFs are stiffer and that the dynamics properties of the two types of structural systems are different. The interstory displacements are similar for both structural systems in many cases. For some other cases, however, they are larger for the model with SMRFs, depending upon the closeness between the earthquake corner periods and the periods of the buildings. The global ductility and story ductility demands are larger for the buildings with PMRFs, implying that, since larger ductility demands are imposed, the detailing of the connections will have to be more stringent than for the buildings with SMRFs. It can be concluded, that the seismic performance of the steel buildings with SMRFs may be superior to that of steel buildings with PMRFs. The findings of this paper are for the particular models used in the study. Much more research is needed to reach more general conclusions

Page 1 from 1     

© 2019 All Rights Reserved | International Journal of Civil Engineering

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb