Earthquakes and Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Seismic behavior of suspended building structures with semi-rigid connections

  • Liu, Yuxin (Civil Engineering Analysis, Candu Energy Inc.) ;
  • Lu, Zhitao (School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University)
  • Received : 2014.02.20
  • Accepted : 2014.07.07
  • Published : 2014.10.30
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

A method is presented in this paper to analyze the dynamic response behavior of suspended building structures. The effect of semi-rigid connections that link suspended floors with their supporting structure on structural performance is investigated. The connections, like the restrains in non-structural suspended components, are designed as semi-rigid to avoid pounding and as energy dissipation components to reduce structural response. Parametric study is conducted to assess the dynamic characteristics of suspended building structures with varying connection stiffness and suspended mass ratios. Modal analysis is applied to identify the two distinct sets of vibration modes, pendulum and bearing, of a suspended building structure. The cumulative modal mass is discussed to ensure the accuracy in applying the method of response spectrum analysis by SRSS or CQC modal combination. Case studies indicate that a suspended building having semi-rigid connections and proper suspended mass ratios can avoid local pounding failure and reduce seismic response.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : National Natural Science Foundation of China

References

  1. ASCE 4-98 (2000), Seismic Analysis of Safety Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, USA.
  2. ASCE 7-05 (2006), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, USA.
  3. ASTM (2011), E580/E580M-11be1, Standard Practice for Installation of Ceiling Suspension Systems for Acoustical Tile and Lay-in Panels in Areas Subject to Earthquake Ground Motions, Developed by Subcommittee: E33.04, ASTM International.
  4. CSA N289.3-10 (2010), Seismic Design and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plants, Canadian Standard Association, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.
  5. EPRI (2008), 1016317, EPRI independent peer review of the TEPCO seismic walkdown and evaluation of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plants: A study in response to the July 16, 2007, NCO earthquake. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto (CA, USA).
  6. FEMA-74 (1994), Reducing the risks of nonstructural earthquake damage. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC (USA).
  7. GB-50011 (2010), Code for seismic design of buildings, China Architecture and Building Press, Beijing, China.
  8. Goodno, B.J. and Gere, J.M. (1976), "Earthquake behaviour of suspended-floor buildings", J. Struct Div. (ASCE), 102(5), 973-992.
  9. Hart, F., Henn, W.H. and Sontag, H. (1985), Multi-Storey Building in Steel, 2nd Edition, Great Britain at the University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  10. IEEE 334 (2005), IEEE Recommended Practice for Seismic Qualification of Class 1E Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., New York, NY, USA.
  11. Liu, Y. (1999), "Optimum Parameter Analysis and Earthquake-evadable Study on Core-Tube Suspension Building Structure Control Systems," Ph.D. Thesis, School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, China.
  12. Liu, Y. (2009), "Hybrid member stiffness matrix accounting for geometrical nonlinearity and member inelasticity in semi-rigid frameworks", Eng. Struct., 31(12), 2880-2895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.07.014
  13. Liu, Y. and Lu, Z. (2010), "Methods of enforcing earthquake base motions in seismic analysis of structures", Eng. Struct., 32(8), 2019-2033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.02.035
  14. Liu, Y. (2010), "Semi-rigid connection modeling for steel frameworks", Struct. Eng.Mech., 35(4), 431-457. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2010.35.4.431
  15. Liu, Y. and Lu, Z. (2013), "Seismic performance and storey-based stability of suspended building structures", Adv. Struct. Eng., accepted.
  16. McKevitt, W.E., Timler, P.A.M. and Lo, K.K. (1995), "Nonstructural damage from the Northridge earthquake", Can. J. Civil Eng., 22(2), 428-437. https://doi.org/10.1139/l95-051
  17. Marsantyo, R., Shimazu, T. and Araki, H. (2000), "Dynamic response of non-structural systems mounted on floors of buildings", Proceeding of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand.
  18. Mezzi, M. and Parducci, A. (2006), "Conceptual seismic design and state-of-the-art protection systems," in The 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, CA, USA.
  19. Neelwame, N. (1993), "Convergence in response spectrum analysis, global versus local modes", Proceeding of the 12th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Stuttgart, Germany.
  20. NRC RG1.92 (2006), "Combination modal responses and spatial components in seismic response analysis", Revision 2, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, USA.
  21. Schueller, W. (1977), High-Rise Building Structures, John Widely & Sons, New York, NY, USA.
  22. Wilson, E.L., Der Kiureghian, A. and Bayo, E.P. (1981), "A replacement for the SRSS method in seismic analysis", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 9(2), 187-192. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290090207

Cited by

  1. Ductility demands and reduction factors for 3D steel structures with pinned and semi-rigid connections vol.16, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2019.16.4.469