Search published articles


Showing 2 results for Plastic Moments

Mostafa Khanzadi, Seyed Mehdi Tavakkoli,
Volume 9, Issue 3 (9-2011)
Abstract

An evolutionary structural optimization (ESO) method is used for plastic design of frames. Based on safe theorems some criteria are derived and made an effort to satisfy them during the optimization process. In this regard, equilibrium is checked and yield condition is gradually satisfied during the optimization process. In this method, the amount of used material and the stiffness for each element are improved, simultaneously, to impose upper bound of moment in the element. Frame analysis and optimization algorithm are implemented as PLADOF (PLAstic Design of Frames) computer code. Four examples are presented to illustrate the performance of the algorithm


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