A new performance‐based seismic design method using endurance time analysis for linked column frame system and a comparison of structural systems and seismic analysis methods

Abstract

SummaryThis paper presents a new performance‐based seismic design method for the design of repairable linked column frame (LCF) and linked column system (LCS). Currently, the biggest problem of these systems is the lack of a simple and practical design method that leads to the design of optimal models with sufficient seismic capacity. The interaction of the primary and secondary systems, changing the lateral load pattern during an earthquake, and the implementation of the target performance objectives have complicated the design of these systems. The evaluations carried out in this research show that the rotation of link beams must be controlled in the design. Therefore, the ultimate plastic rotation of links is determined to be 0.01 rad for the seismic intensity of design base earthquake and 0.015 rad for maximum considered earthquake. The results show that the models designed using the presented method are optimal, have sufficient seismic capacity, and achieve the target performance objectives. In addition, although previous researches have shown that these systems have a suitable seismic behavior, their seismic behavior have not been compared with other structural systems. Comparing can show the behavioral characteristics of a new structural system; hence, the elastic and plastic behavior of the LCF and LCS models have been compared with other common steel structural systems using all analysis methods. Moreover, in the presented method for the design of LCF and LCS systems, nonlinear time history analysis using the endurance time method (ETM) is used, and due to the newness of the endurance time method, its results are compared with the median results of nonlinear time history analysis at different seismic hazard levels and incremental dynamic analysis (IDA), in 45 samples. The results show that the endurance time analysis is a reasonable and efficient method, and in this comparison, the difference between the results of ETM and IDA methods is 6% on average.