Abstract
This study is focused on?nonlinear analysis and design of?spatial and perimeter moment resisting frames for a 9-storeys?office building?having?9.15?m span.?Seismic?design criteria of Eurocode 8?Ductility Class High (DCH)?with behavior factor (q) of 6.5 and AISC/ASCE code,?Special Moment resisting Frame (SMF) with response modification factor (R) of 8 were employed.?The design outcomes?are?expressed in terms of frame performance?(non-linear analysis), section profiles?(code recommendations), strength-demand to capacity ratios, drift-demand to capacity?ratios and structural weight. The consequences of the research compare?two codes in term of weights and design performances.?This will aid professional engineers and researchers to select effective design criteria and capacity design rules?efficiently.
Highlights
Conventional structural design of buildings considers two limit states, the Ultimate Limit State (ULS) and the Serviceability Limit State (SLS)
To control such a global structural behavior, codes provide the so-called criterion of capacity design where non-dissipative members are designed for comparatively higher seismic forces than dissipative members and dissipative members are kept at such locations that will fail before the brittle members and subsequently will protect non-ductile elements by overstressing [4]
The reduction in the period is due to the fact that simplified formulae given by seismic codes tend to underestimate the fundamental period of vibration, being based on empirical evaluation
Summary
Conventional structural design of buildings considers two limit states, the Ultimate Limit State (ULS) and the Serviceability Limit State (SLS). For structures vulnerable to strong or moderate seismic action, modern building codes [1] [2] [3] allow inelastic deformations but strictly limiting the development of unreliable mechanisms that could impair the global mechanisms of the structure This all can be achieved through the smart use of capacity design approaches. This obliged the structural design that non-dissipative zones should remain in the elastic field whereas the dissipative ones should undergo large inelastic deformations To control such a global structural behavior, codes provide the so-called criterion of capacity design where non-dissipative members are designed for comparatively higher seismic forces than dissipative members and dissipative members are kept at such locations that will fail before the brittle members and subsequently will protect non-ductile elements by overstressing [4]. The columns behave elastically during a seismic event and allowed to carry the gravity loadings during a post seismic event [10]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
