Evaluating ASCE 41‐17 performance‐based provisions on optimally designed steel moment frames

Abstract

In this study, the ASCE 41-17 nonlinear static procedure for steel moment-resisting frames is evaluated using a three-phase constraint handling procedure. For the first time, advanced performance measures of ASCE 41-17 are quantified during the optimization process by constructing concentrated plasticity models of the standard.Covariance matrix adaptation in evolution strategies (CMA-ES) is used to obtain optimal designs for three-and nine-story illustrative examples. Active and inactive constraints are discussed in the current performance-based design methodology as a guide for future research. The seismic evaluation procedure outlined in FEMA P695 is applied to 147 optimal designs. Plastic hinge models explicitly simulate cyclic deterioration in nonlinear dynamic analyses. The numerical results conclusively demonstrate that the design procedure provides an acceptable margin of safety from collapse of the treated frames. Moreover, there is no significant relationship between the structural weights and the collapse margin ratios for such optimally designed structures.

A deductive design method to simplify ASCE 41-17 nonlinear static procedure preserving the adjusted collapse margin ratio of steel moment frames

“…Hosseini Lavassani et al (2022) investigated optimal linguistic design variables of fuzzy logic controllers to explain the behavior of a fifteen-story structure under pulse-type earthquake records. Ebadijalal and Shahrouzi (2022) studied the optimal structural weight with respect to collapse margin ratio. The authors concluded that there is no direct strong relationship between seismic safety and optimal weight of steel momentresisting frames.…”

“…The relationship between structural optimization and seismic evaluation is another intriguing research topic. Ebadijalal and Shahrouzi (2022) demonstrated that metaheuristic algorithms can generate sample structures for evaluation purposes. Ghasemiazar and Gholizadeh (2022) evaluated the seismic safety of several chevron-braced frames that were topologically optimized.…”

“…This is only possible with the seismic strength-based design requirements. Ebadijalal and Shahrouzi (2022) demonstrated that the nonlinear static procedure (NSP) of (ASCE 41-17 2017) is remarkably similar to a force-based design method, in which ductile elements do not need to be designed directly under seismic loads and indestructible elements are elastic until the Collapse Prevention (CP) level. The procedure assumes that columns remain undamaged while moment frames do not require direct seismic design for beams.…”

“…The forces can be calculated by multiplying the seismic forces by an overstrength factor that turns the base shear of the equivalent static method into the actual base shear at the cap point of the pushover curve. According to the study by Ebadijalal and Shahrouzi (2022), a mid-rise (about 5-to 10-story) SMRF can be considered to have a constant overstrength factor of 3.5.…”