The effect of design drift limit on the seismic performance of RC dual high‐rise buildings

Abstract

Current building codes aim to ensure the acceptable performance of structures implicitly.Because these provisions are empirically developed for low-to medium-rise buildings, their applicability to high-rise building warrants further investigation. In this paper, the effect of design drift limit on the seismic performance of reinforced concrete dual high-rise buildings is considered.Nine buildings are designed for 3 drift limits: the code limit (i.e., 2%), one that is lower than the code limit (i.e., 1.5%), and one that is higher than the code limit (i.e., 3%). For each drift limit, buildings of 3 heights (20, 25, and 30 stories) are designed. Finite element models are constructed in OpenSees, and incremental dynamic analysis is performed. The results are used to develop probabilistic seismic demand models, where model parameters are determined using maximum likelihood estimation to incorporate equality and censored data. Reliability analysis using probabilistic demand models is conducted to derive seismic fragility and demand hazard curves. In addition, the collapse performance of the drift limits is evaluated using the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) P695 procedure. The study results show that the design drift limit affects the building's seismic performance, and the effect depends on the performance level considered.Moreover, from a structural integrity perspective, a larger design drift limit does not induce a significantly higher risk and might yield a more cost-effective design. KEYWORDSdesign drift limit, high-rise structures, incremental dynamic analysis, performance-based earthquake engineering, probabilistic models, reliability analysis | INTRODUCTIONThe minimum height of a structure to be considered as a high-rise building varies from 10 stories to 60 m. The number of buildings with a height of 200 m or more has increased by 392% in the last 15 years. In 2015, 106 of these structures were completed, which was a new world record. [1] The significant social and economic impacts of recent earthquakes [2,3] and the worldwide surge in high-rise construction have drawn attention to the challenges of the design and assessment of tall buildings. [4,5] Three major issues in the application of current building codes for the design of tall buildings are• The current codes do not explicitly quantify performance due to their empirical nature.• Seismic design coefficients (e.g., response coefficient, R, and amplification factor, C d ) are used to relate elastic design to inelastic responses.However, because these coefficients are primarily calibrated for low-to medium-rise buildings based on engineering judgment, [6] they may not be suitable for high-rise buildings.• Common codes are developed to provide design requirements for general structures rather than a specific class of structures. Therefore, following the same design procedures could yield structures with different performance. For example, ASCE 7-10 (and earlier versions) [7] allows the same drift limits for high-rise structures as for low-and me...

Seismic Performance Evaluation of Special RC Frames with Gravity Steel Columns under the Base Level

“…ese fragility curves suggest that substituting RC columns with simply supported steel columns at basement stories does not negatively impact the seismic behavior of the structure [41].…”

Machine vision‐based automated earthquake‐induced drift ratio quantification for reinforced concrete columns

“…The central core of this methodology is the closed-form regression-based predictive equation for estimating the seismic peak IDR as the major indicator of damage. [48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59] The predictive models are generated using comprehensive databank of 445 images of 110 rectangular RC column specimens at various damage stages. In order to assess the probability of exceeding from a damage state for structural and nonstructural components, the seismic peak IDR obtained through this methodology can be incorporated as the EDP in existing fragility functions found in literature.…”

A Holistic Review of GM/IM Selection Methods from a Structural Performance-Based Perspective

“…Three popular procedures are available to estimate P(EDP > edp|I M) using nonlinear dynamic analysis: cloud analysis [39], multiple stripe analysis (MSA) [40], and incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) [41]. IDA successively scales the selected GMs to increasing amplitude using the same GM suite [42,43], whereas MSA uses different GMs at different hazard levels. In cloud analysis, structures are subjected to a large number of records, and the relationship between IM and EDP (i.e., a cloud of IM-EDP data points) is modeled using a regression model [44].…”