4.7 Article

Seismic assessment of existing tall buildings: A case study of a 35-story steel building with pre-Northridge connection

期刊

ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
卷 141, 期 -, 页码 624-633

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.03.047

关键词

Damage and loss analysis; Existing structures; Performance Based Earthquake Engineering; Seismic performance evaluation; Steel moment resisting frames; Tall buildings

资金

  1. California Office of Emergency Services (CaIOES) [DR-1884]
  2. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center as part of its Tall Buildings Initiative
  3. Next Generation Attenuation Relationship programs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Tall Buildings Initiative (TBI) program of Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center has been expanded to consider the seismic performance of existing tall buildings. This paper selects a 35-story steel moment resisting frame (SMRF), designed in 1968 with construction details representative of that period, for detailed seismic evaluation in the framework of Performance Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE). A three-dimensional numerical model capturing the mechanical properties of the most critical structural elements was generated using the program: Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees). Systematic nonlinear response history analysis (NRHA) under two basic safety earthquake (BSE) hazard levels for existing buildings were performed following ASCE 41-13 guideline. Probabilistic checks on the confidence levels of the building to achieve collapse prevention (CP) and immediate occupancy (IO) at different hazard levels were conducted based on FEMA 351. In addition, damage and loss analysis was carried out using FEMA P-58 PBEE methodology. Analysis results following different procedures all predicted that the case-study building failed to meet the recommended performance objectives and had a variety of seismic vulnerabilities, and possible retrofits were needed. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据