THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build.

20, 190207 (2011) Published online 3 July 2009 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tal). DOI: 10.1002/tal.528

Incremental dynamic analysis of steel braced frames designed based on the rst, second and third editions of the iranian seismic code (standard no. 2800)
Behrouz Asgarian and Ali Jalaeefar*,
Civil Engineering Faculty, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, No 1346 Valiasr St Mirdamad Intersection, Tehran, Iran, P.O Box: 15875-4416

SUMMARY Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is an emerging method in structural analysis which allows evaluation of seismic capacity and demand of structures through a series of nonlinear dynamic analyses using multiple scaled ground motion records. Seismic behaviour of concentrically braced frames designed based on the rst, second and third revisions of the Iranian seismic code, standard no. 2800, has been evaluated through IDA in the present paper. Besides, a brief comparison is made between seismic behaviour of these frames, frames with different heights and different bracing types. Seismic capacity and limit states of such structures have been reviewed through the paper. The IDA results imply that frames designed with the rst edition are seriously vulnerable and fail before reaching the acceleration levels predicted in the code. On the other hand, frames designed with the second and third editions, although behaving better, need partial reinforcement in some cases. Other results of this study show that chevron braced frames behave seismically better than X-braced ones. Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1. INTRODUCTION The rst edition of the Iranian seismic code 2800, composed in 1986, was the rst code in Iran for seismic loading and design of structures independent of other load cases. Although the rst edition was a step forward in design of structures, serious defects in its seismic requirements led to the publishing of the second revision of the code in 1998. The most important difference between these two revisions is concentrated in six attachments added to the second edition. Specically, the second attachment which contains special requirements for seismic design of steel structures was a great revolution in reinforcement of them. The third edition of the code, published in 2004, modied the requirements both in earthquake force calculation and design criteria, and is being widely used by Iranian structural engineers. On the other hand, looking through steel structures designed and constructed in Iran, it is obvious that a great percentage of them use concentric bracing as lateral resisting system. Hence, a comparison between seismic behaviour of concentrically braced frames designed based on the rst. second and third revisions of the Iranian seismic code 2800 has been made in this paper. Several methods are available to perform such a study. Among them is the incremental dynamic analysis (IDA), a powerful method that goes through evaluation of structures considering multiple scaled ground motion records. Three groups of structures according to their heights are being studied here. Five-storey structures as representative of low-rise buildings, eight-storey structures as representative of mid-rise buildings and 12-storey structure as representative of semi-high-rise buildings.

* Correspondence to: Ali Jalaeefar, No. 22 Narvan Alley, Ghoba St., Dr. Shariati St., Tehran, Iran P.O Box: 19487-64167 E-mail: Ali_jalaeefar@yahoo.com Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

IDA OF STEEL BRACED FRAMES

191

For each of the three groups, two types of bracings, chevron and X-bracing, have been designed based on the three editions of the seismic code 2800. Hence, 18 braced structures with different heights, bracing types and design codes are being studied using the IDA method. IDA is an emerging analysis method through which capacity and limit states can be predicted using a series of nonlinear dynamic analyses (Vamvatsikos, 2002). Ground motion records are scaled in multiple steps to perform such analyses and to trace the structural behaviour from elasticity to total failure. IDA diagrams are extracted for each ground motion record according to maximum response of structure in each step of scaling. Summarizing the groups of IDA curves using statistical methods and combining the results with hazard analysis parameters, structural behaviour, capacity and limit state can be studied. 2. GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS 2.1. About the code The Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings, standard no. 2800, published by the Building and Housing Research Center, contains requirements for the seismic design of all common structures in Iran. All steel, reinforced concrete, masonry and even wooden structures except special ones such as dams, bridges, marine structures, etc., should be designed using these requirements. The basic concept of the code is to provide requirements that: (a) cause buildings to remain stable in severe earthquakes and hence minimize mortality; (b) decrease structural damage due to earthquakes with low and moderate intensities in common buildings; and (c) prevent structural damage due to earthquakes with low and moderate intensities in important buildings. Severe earthquakes (design earthquakes) are the ones with a probability of occurrence less than 10% in 50 years. Earthquakes with low and moderate intensities are the ones with a probability of occurrence more than 99.5% in 50 years. Earthquake lateral forces can be calculated using the following two methods depending on the structure: (a) equivalent static analysis method; and (b) dynamic analysis method. Using the equivalent static method is allowed just for regular structures with less than 50 m of height or irregular ones with less than ve stories or 18 m of height. Others must be designed using dynamic analysis method. Base shear force is calculated according to equation (1) in the equivalent static method, as in UBC-94. V = C W (1) (standard no. 2800)

where V is the base shear force; C is the base shear coefcient; and W = total dead load + b (live load), 0 b 1. The base shear coefcient is calculated from equation (2) as follows: C= ABI R (2) (standard no. 2800)

where A = 1/g (earthquake design acceleration); B is the reection factor, which describes the structures response to the ground motion considering the four soil types introduced in the code and the structures height; I is the structural importance factor; and R is the response modication factor. The base shear V is linearly distributed in the structures height according to its rst mode of vibration. 2.2. Design of structures 2.2.1. Geometric parameters and gravity loading All of the 18 structures are similar in plan (Figure 1) and storey heights as usual in residential buildings. Vertical bracings are placed in middle bays in each side of the plan, making the structure symCopyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 190207 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

192

B. ASGARIAN AND A. JALAEEFAR

Figure 1. Framing and bracing plan. metric in plan. Rigid diaphragm can be assumed according to the roof system as in usual structures. Gravity loads are supposed to be similar to common residential buildings in Iran (standard no. 519. 2000). 2.2.2. Lateral loading (earthquake loads) The three editions of the seismic code 2800 are used for the design of earthquake-resisting frames. The most outstanding requirements used in this procedure are as follows. 2.2.2.1. Structural analysis method Being regular and symmetric in plan and height, as mentioned in the code 2800, equivalent static analysis is allowed to be used for the structures (standard no. 2800). 2.2.2.2. Calculation of base shear coefcient Base shear is calculated according to equation (1) in the equivalent static method. Table 1 summarizes the steps for calculating the coefcient C according to the code. The earthquake lateral force is distributed linearly in the structures height according to rst deformation mode of buildings. To take into account higher modes effect, lateral force Ft should be considered on the last storey level for structures having main period larger than 0.7 secs. The base shear coefcient for each of the 18 test structures is listed in Table 2.
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 190207 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

IDA OF STEEL BRACED FRAMES

193

Table 1. Base shear coefcient calculation. Parameter

A R I T

First edition
0.35 7 1 0.09 H D T = min 3 0.06 H 4

Second edition
0.35 6 1
3

Third edition
0.35 6 1
3

T = 0.05 H 4

T = 0.05 H 4

Soil type
B

Type II
T B = 2.0 0 T

Type II
T B = 2.5 0 T

( )

2 3

< 2.0

( )

2 3

< 2.5

T B = 1 + S T 0 B = S + 1 B = ( S + 1) Ts T

( )

Type II
0 T T0 T0 T Ts
2 3

( )

T Ts

A, 1/g (earthquake design acceleration); R, response modication factor; I, structural importance factor; T, structural main period of vibration using experimental formulas; H, structures height; D, structures width in the assumed direction; B, reection factor; T0, Ts, S, parameters dening soil effects.

Table 2. Base shear coefcient for test frames. Base shear coefcient Test frames (stories)
5 8 12

First edition
0.0869 0.0630 0.0479

Second edition
0.1414 0.1112 0.0905

Third edition
0.1414 0.1112 0.0905

2.2.2.3. Lateral storey drift control Having nished the design procedure, it is necessary to perform variable controls for the structure, one of which is storey drift control. According to the rst edition of the code, lateral storey drift should be less than 0.005 of the storey height, while the second edition recommends 0.03/R of the storey height, R being the structural behaviour coefcient. The third edition of the code introduces two concepts for lateral displacement. Real lateral displacement, m, assuming nonlinear response of the structure, and design lateral displacement, w, assuming linear behaviour are calculated as follows: m = 0.7 R w (3) (standard no. 2800, third edition)

where m is the real lateral storey drift, w is the design lateral storey drift and R is the structural behaviour coefcient. m should be less than 0.02 for structures having main period larger than 0.7 s and 0.025 for others. 2.2.2.4. Column efciency The second attachment of the second and third editions of the code recommends special requirements for design of steel structures, one of which is to control efciency of columns in axial loads, both in tension and compression. The recommended load combinations to perform such a control are as follows:
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 190207 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

194

B. ASGARIAN AND A. JALAEEFAR

PDL + 0.8 PLL + (0.4 R ) PE PSC 0.85PD + (0.4 R ) PE PST PPL + 0.8 PLL + 2.8 PE PSC 0.85PDL + 2.8 PE PST

(4) (Compression control in the second edition) (5) (Tension control in the second edition) (6) (Compression control in the third edition) (7) (Tension control in the third edition)

where PDL is the axial dead loads, PLL is the axial live loads, PE is the axial earthquake loads, PSC is the axial strength in compression, PST is the axial strength in tension and R is the response modication factor. 2.2.2.5. Bracing member requirements Special requirements for the design of steel bracing members are recommended in the second attachment of the code. In addition to slenderness and joint requirements, the allowable compressive stress of the brace member is discussed. According to the code, this stress should be decreased to a lower limit using the following equations: Fas = BFa B= 1 1 + kl r 2CC (8) (9)

where Fas is the reduced allowable compressive strength, Fa is the allowable compressive strength, B 2 2 E , E is the elastic modulus of steel is the reduction factor, kl/r is the slenderness ratio, CC = Fy and Fy is the steel yield stress. Brace members are designed with the decreased compressive strength. 2.3. Modelling the structures Each of the 18 structures selected for the study is loaded, analysed and designed according to mentioned assumptions. AISC-ASD89 design rules are used in the design procedure. OpenSees nite element programme, generated and developed in West American universities, is used for modelling and IDA of the structures. IDA is performed for a two-dimensional (2D) frame of each structure which is located on axis A of the plan. Most important assumptions in modelling of the 2D frames are as follows: 2.3.1. Geometric and material nonlinearity (Criseld, 1991) The main structural elements are supposed to yield or buckle during severe earthquakes. Hence, both geometric and material nonlinearity should be taken into account while modelling the structures. Using nite element method based on uniaxial elements is a way to face the matter. Both lumped and distributed plasticity can be used for modelling material nonlinearity. The latter is used in the present study. To solve geometrically nonlinear problems in beams or uniaxial elements, Lagrangian method, modied Lagrangian method and corotational method are available. Corotational method, which is used in this study, is more efcient and less time consuming than the others. Equilibrium equations are solved based on the deformed shaped coordinate system as in modied Lagrangian method. Besides assuming only the degrees of freedom related to deformations, and not rigid movements, a basic system of coordinates is generated. Using such a system of coordinates, equilibrium equations are solved while stiffness matrices are updated in each step of solution.
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 190207 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

IDA OF STEEL BRACED FRAMES

195

Figure 2. Stressstrain curve for steel material.

To model the St-37 steel behaviour, steel 02 stressstrain curve is used from the library of materials introduced in OpenSees. The stressstrain curve is shown in Figure 2. 2.3.2. Elements used A force-based beamcolumn element, consists of bre elements, is used for beams, columns and braces. Using St-37 stressstrain curve, stress is calculated in parts of the element section according to the imposed strain. Integrating on section area, total stress, forcedeformation and momentcurvature curves are calculated. At last, taking all integration points into account, forces and deformations are calculated. 2.3.2.1. Modelling beams Beams in braced frames are modelled as moment-released beams at both ends. Therefore, beams are not parts of lateral resisting system and will behave elastically under gravity loads. 2.3.2.2. Modelling columns Columns in braced frames are parts of a lateral resisting system and are supposed to enter nonlinear region in severe earthquakes. Hence, both geometric and material nonlinearity should be taken into account for them. An initial deection equal to 1/1000 of the element span is considered to provide geometric nonlinearity conditions as shown in Figure 3. This will make in-plan buckling of columns possible under severe earthquake loads. Buckling occurs around the weaker axis of column section. Considering the weaker axis in the frame plan, 2D modelling of the structure will be similar to real conditions. Besides, material nonlinearity is provided using bre elements as mentioned in the previous section. 2.3.2.3. Modelling braces Braces are modelled as moment-released elements at both ends and are supposed to behave as axial members. Geometric nonlinearity is provided in the same way as columns, considering initial deection in midspan of the brace element. Thus, buckling is assumed to occur around the weaker axis of the brace section in the frame plan.
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 190207 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

196

B. ASGARIAN AND A. JALAEEFAR

Figure 3. Initial imperfection in columns and braces. 2.4. Behaviour of axial members under cyclic loads The behaviour of axial members under cyclic loads, both in linear and nonlinear regions, should be studied to make sure that modelling assumptions are similar to real conditions. Figure 4(ac) shows the hysteretic curves for sample braces modelled using different slenderness. The results are similar to buckling loads calculated using AISC-ASD89 requirement as shown in Table 3. Hysteretic curves are also similar to experimental results of Black and Popov (1980) Zayas and Popov (1981). Thus, modelling assumptions of axial members are close to reality. 2.5. IDA parameters 2.5.1. Acceleration time histories used Twenty acceleration time histories are selected for IDA of frames. Soil condition is assumed to be similar to type II of soil classication in the standard 2800. Table 4 summarizes the information for the selected 20 records. 2.5.2. Intensity (IM) and damage measures (DM) Suitable IM and DM are other basic parameters of an IDA study. The IM selected for IDA is an important factor in reecting the real behaviour of an acceleration time history to the structure. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) was at rst used for IM, but linear scaling of the time history records using PGA caused a great dispersion in the results of analysis with different records. Thus, rst-mode spectral acceleration (SA) is used as scalable IM in this study. Considering the structures main period, earthquake duration, damping effects, etc., in calculating a spectrum, make SA a more powerful IM than PGA in reecting the time history effects to the structure. But, it seems that using other parameters such as energy content of records may cause the results to be more exact and real. Besides, maximum inter-storey drift is selected as DM according to seismic code 2800, in the present study. 2.5.3. Scaling acceleration time histories The 20 selected records are linearly scaled in 14 steps, from 0.1 g to 2.4 g according to rst-mode SA. For each of the test frames, the SA corresponding to the rst mode of vibration is extracted from
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 190207 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

IDA OF STEEL BRACED FRAMES

197

Figure 4. Cyclic behaviour of brace members.

Table 3. Analytical and American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) buckling loads. Slenderness
40 80 120

Analytical buckling load (kg/cm2)

2309 1997 1373

AISC buckling load (kg/cm2)

2228 1955 1399

1 kg/cm2 = 104 kg/m2 = 2048.16 lb/ft2 = 98 066.5 N/m2.

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 190207 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

198

B. ASGARIAN AND A. JALAEEFAR

Table 4. Acceleration time histories used. Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Location
Tabas Kobe Loma Prieta Loma Prieta Loma Prieta Loma Prieta Loma Prieta Loma Prieta Loma Prieta Loma Prieta Loma Prieta Loma Prieta Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Imperial Valley Imperial Valley

Date
16/9/78 16/1/95 18/10/89 18/10/89 18/10/89 18/10/89 18/10/89 18/10/89 18/10/89 18/10/89 18/10/89 18/10/89 15/10/79 15/10/79 15/10/79 15/10/79 15/10/79 15/10/79 15/10/79 15/10/79

Station
9101 Tabas Nishi Akashi Agnews State Hospital Hollister Clif Alley Anderson Dam Koyote Lake Sunnyvale Colton Hollister South Sunnyvale Colton WAHO WAHO Hollister Clif Alley Plaster City Cucapah El-Centro Array 3 Westmorland 5 Chihuahua El-Centro Array 3 Westmorland 5 Plaster City

PGA (g)
0.852 0.509 0.159 0.279 0.244 0.179 0.207 0.371 0.209 0.37 0.638 0.269 0.057 0.309 0.117 0.074 0.254 0.139 0.11 0.042

the time history record. Using this quantity, the record is linearly scaled so that its SA becomes 0.1 g, 0.2 g, 0.3 g, 0.4 g, 0.6 g, 0.8 g, 1.0 g . . . 2.4 g. This means that in each step of scaling, all points are multiplied by a unique scaling factor as follows. a ( t ) = ( a1 , a2 ,, an ) original time history record A ( t ) = ba ( t ) = ( ba1 , ba2 ,, ban ) scaled time history record Considering this range, structural behaviour can be traced from elasticity to total failure. 3. IDA OF FRAMES USING 20 RECORDS IDA is performed for the 18 selected frames using the assumptions mentioned before, and IDA curves are extracted for each of the 20 records. The IDA curves display a wide range of behaviour, showing large record-to-record variability, thus making it essential to summarize such data and quantify the randomness introduced by the records. We need to employ appropriate summarization techniques that will reduce these data to the distribution of DM given IM. Mean value is not a good choice due to innite values of DM at high levels of IM. Thus, statistical 16, 50 and 84% fractiles are used for summarizing the DM values. Median is the most famous and common form of fractile, and half of all quantities are greater than the median. Similarly, 16% of all quantities are greater than the 16% fractile, and 84% of all quantities are greater than the 84% fractile. Hence, each group of the curves is summarized to three individual ones. Figures 5(a, b), 6(a, b) and 7(a, b) show sample results of IDA for X-braced frames designed with the third edition of the seismic code 2800. The median or the 50% fractile is used for comparing the results. Obviously, other fractiles could also be used instead, but as mentioned above, median is the most common of all. As shown in the gures, the initial stiffness decreases by increasing the structures height, and taller frames reach higher displacement levels in lower SAs. The same procedure can be seen in curves related to frames designed based on the rst and second editions of the code, and frames with different bracing types.
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 190207 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

IDA OF STEEL BRACED FRAMES

199

Figure 5. Summarizing incremental dynamic analysis curves for X-braced ve-storey frame designed by the third edition (H = 17 m). 4. CAPACITY AND LIMIT STATES Different methods are available for calculating capacity points in IDA curves, one of which is the 20% slope criteria (Vamvatsikos, 2002). The capacity point in this method is the rst point on the IDA curve in which the tangent slope will be equal to 20% of the initial elastic slope. But, this study is based on the seismic code 2800; thus, capacity points are determined using the code requirements for damage prevention. The two concepts introduced in section 2.1.2.3 for lateral storey drift control (real lateral drift and design lateral drift) are considered as damage limits. These limits are calculated for each of the frames, and are summarized in Table 5. 5. ANALYZING THE IDA RESULTS Considering the 18 frames, 20 acceleration time histories and 14 steps of scaling, 5040 nonlinear dynamic analyses are performed. After summarizing the results, three types of comparison can be made as follows. 5.1. Studying behaviour of frames with similar heights and different design codes Figure 8(af) shows IDA curves for X-braced ve-storey frames designed based on the rst, second and third editions of the code. IDA curves are based on the maximum inter-storey drifts or maximum roof displacement. Studying the curves, it is obvious that frames designed with the third edition of the code have higher stiffness, and therefore less displacement occurs in them than frames designed with the second and rst editions.
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 190207 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

200

B. ASGARIAN AND A. JALAEEFAR

Figure 6. Summarizing incremental dynamic analysis curves for X-braced eight-storey frame designed by the third edition (H = 27.5 m).

The difference between frames designed with the third and second editions is almost negligible, while frames designed with the rst edition of the code are completely distinct. Fifty per cent fractile curves (median) for each of the X-braced ve-storey frames are calculated from which the following results are concluded: (a) The initial tangent slope (say, elastic stiffness) of the curves increases from the rst edition to the third, and frames behave with higher stiffness. (b) The elastic stiffness for the ve-storey X-braced frame designed with the rst edition of the code is 19.32, while for the frames designed with the second and third editions, the stiffnesses are 35.63 and 35.89 (similar stiffness of the latter frames is considerable). (c) The design lateral displacement of the roof for the frames designed with the second and third editions occurs in 0.57 g, while in the rst edition frame it occurs in 0.2 g. Real lateral storey drifts in the rst, second and third edition frames occur in 1.11 g, 1.92 g and 2.0 g, while predicted acceleration for linear and nonlinear behaviour of the structures are 0.16 g and 0.962 g (AB/R = 0.16 g , AB = 0.962 g; see Table 1). (d) The lateral inter-storey drifts have almost the same behaviour. Considering the damage criteria summarized in Table 6, the lateral design storey drift predicted in the code for the ve-storey frame designed based on the rst edition occurs in 0.28 g, while this quantity is 0.37 g for the second edition frame and 0.39 g for the third. Real lateral storey drifts predicted in the code for the ve-storey frames designed based on the rst, second and third editions occur in 0.79 g,
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 190207 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

IDA OF STEEL BRACED FRAMES

201

Figure 7. Summarizing incremental dynamic analysis curves for X-braced 12-storey frame designed by the third edition (H = 41.5 m).

Table 5. Code capacity points (standard no. 2800). Height (cm)

1700 1700 1700 2750 2750 2750 4150 4150 4150 1700 1700 1700 2750 2750 2750 4150 4150 4150

Stories
5 8 12 5 8 12

Bracing
X-bracing X-bracing X-bracing Chevron Chevron Chevron

Code
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Period (s)
0.87 0.69 0.67 1.5 1.1 1.04 2.37 1.68 1.65 0.85 0.63 0.61 1.47 1.02 0.95 2.33 1.65 1.53

Design lateral drift

0.00408 0.0059 0.0059 0.00408 0.0047 0.0047 0.00408 0.0047 0.0047 0.00408 0.0059 0.0059 0.00408 0.0047 0.0047 0.00408 0.0047 0.0047

Real lateral drift

0.02 0.025 0.025 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.025 0.025 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

Design roof displacement (cm)

6.93 10.11 10.11 11.22 13.09 13.09 16.93 19.76 19.76 6.93 10.11 10.11 11.22 13.09 13.09 16.93 19.76 19.76

Real roof displacement (cm)

34 42.5 42.5 55 55 55 83 83 83 34 42.5 42.5 55 55 55 83 83 83

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 190207 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

202

B. ASGARIAN AND A. JALAEEFAR

Figure 8. Summarized incremental dynamic analysis curves for X-braced ve-storey frame designed with the three editions of the code.

1.0 g and 1.05 g. The little difference between capacity levels of the second and third edition frames is related to stronger columns in the third edition frames, while braces are exactly the same in both. (As mentioned in section 2.1.2.4, the load combinations used for axial control of columns are different in the two editions.) On the other hand, frames designed with the rst edition of the code are seriously more vulnerable than the other two. One important reason is the soft and weak rst storey which increases the lateral displacement of above stories. The same procedure can be seen comparing eight-storey (Figure 9(af)) and 12-storey frames designed with different editions of the code. The results for other frames are summarized in Table 6. As seen in Table 6:

(a) Elastic stiffness increases from the rst edition frames to the third. (b) Lateral design storey drifts occur in lower acceleration levels in the rst edition frames than in the second and third edition ones. (c) The second and third edition frames behave almost similarly, although the third edition frames are usually more efcient reducing lateral displacements.
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 190207 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

IDA OF STEEL BRACED FRAMES

203

Table 6. Summary of incremental dynamic analysis results for 18 frames. SA corresponding design lateral drift (g)
0.28 0.37 0.39 0.10 0.46 0.47 0.09 0.21 0.18 0.22 0.82 0.81 0.13 0.38 0.34 0.09 0.19 0.19

Stories
5 8 12 5 8 12

Bracing
X-brace X-brace X-brace Chevron Chevron Chevron

Code
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Elastic stiffness
19.32 35.63 35.89 5.74 13.88 13.88 3.42 5.35 5.35 19.42 29.80 35.09 8.25 11.97 15.15 3.87 4.65 5.73

SA corresponding real lateral drift (g)

0.79 1.00 1.05 0.25 1.03 1.15 0.23 0.75 0.79 0.57 1.93 2.03 0.41 1.35 1.31 0.18 1.00 0.94

SA corresponding design roof displacement (g)

0.20 0.57 0.57 0.07 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.2 0.31 0.27 0.08 0.20 0.24 0.06 0.08 0.10

SA corresponding real roof displacement (g)

1.11 1.92 2.00 0.56 1.02 1.18 0.40 0.80 0.85 0.97 >2.4 >2.4 0.53 1.19 1.58 0.42 0.85 0.85

SA, spectral acceleration.

(d) Design and real lateral displacements and drifts of 12-storey frames designed with the third edition occur in lower acceleration levels than what is specied in the code (AB/R = 0.16 g, AB = 0.962 g; see Table 1). Thus, reinforcement is required for such frames.

5.2. Studying behaviour of frames with similar design codes and different heights Figure 10(ae) shows IDA curves for 5-, 8- and 12-storey X-braced frames designed with the third edition of the code. The DM in Figure 10 is maximum inter-storey drift in typical stories. Typical stories are dened according to Table 7 to make comparison between frames possible. The following conclusions can be made in studying the IDA curves in Figure 10(ae):
(a) Elastic stiffness decreases while number of stories increases, and lateral displacements in taller frames are more than others in the same acceleration level. (b) Although the behaviour of rst typical stories in 5-, 8- and 12-storey frames are almost similar, but the little difference between curves increases moving to higher stories. This may be related to higher mode effect which is considerable in taller buildings. The different distribution of lateral forces in taller frames causes different damage distribution in the structures height. The same procedure can be seen in frames designed with different codes and bracing types. 5.3. Studying behaviour of frames with similar design codes, similar heights and different bracing types Although it is not possible to nd a special rule governing the behaviour of the frames with different bracing types, but it can be claimed that in most cases chevron bracing is more efcient in reducing lateral displacements than X-bracing. As shown in Figure 11(af), this difference is considerable in some cases and negligible in others. But, it is obvious that in most cases, chevron braced frames
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 190207 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

204

B. ASGARIAN AND A. JALAEEFAR

Figure 9. Summarized incremental dynamic analysis curves for X-braced eight-storey frame designed with the three editions of the code.

behave better specially in higher stories. This may be because of the beam axial stiffness in the storey level which contributes in lateral resistance of the frame. The same procedure can be seen in frames designed with different codes and different heights. 6. CONCLUSIONS (a) IDA is completely dependent on acceleration time histories selected, and results are different from one record to the other. Many parameters such as earthquake duration, acceleration peak points, frequency content and energy content of the record are effective in analysis results. (b) The IM selected for IDA (rst-mode SA in the present study) is an important factor in reecting the real behaviour of an acceleration time history to the structure. Although SA is more efcient than PGA in this process, it seems that using other parameters such as energy content of records may cause the results to be more exact and real. (c) Although it is not possible to nd a special rule governing the behaviour of the frames with different bracing types, it can be claimed that in most cases chevron bracing is more efcient in reducing lateral displacements than X-bracing. In other cases, the difference is negligible.
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 190207 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

IDA OF STEEL BRACED FRAMES

205

Figure 10. Summarized incremental dynamic analysis curves comparing 5-, 8- and 12-storey X-braced frames, designed with the third edition of the code.

Table 7. Denition of typical stories. Typical storey

First Second Third Fourth Fifth

Compared storey in ve-storey frames

First Second Third Fourth Fifth

Compared storey in eight-storey frames

First Second Fourth Sixth Eighth

Compared storey in 12-storey frames

First Third Fifth Seventh Ninth

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 190207 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

206

B. ASGARIAN AND A. JALAEEFAR

Figure 11. Summarized incremental dynamic analysis curves comparing ve-storey frames, designed with the third edition of the code, with X-bracing and chevron bracing. (d) The rst edition of the Iranian seismic code 2800 does not introduce any special requirements for steel braced frame reinforcement. Thus, frames designed with the rst edition reach capacity limits in lower acceleration levels and do not satisfy the codes requirements for lateral drifts and displacements. (e) Although ve-storey frames showed lower displacements than 8- and 12-storey ones in the same acceleration levels, it is obvious that optimum height of a structure depends also on other parameters such as site soil classication and its interaction with the structure, frequency content of the earthquake records, etc., which needs a more detailed study. (f) Higher mode effects in mid-rise and high-rise buildings are of great importance, and it is necessary to take these effects into account as mentioned in the seismic code. (g) Although frames designed based on the third edition of the seismic code (standard no. 2800) are more efcient in controlling of lateral displacements than the others, they still need seismic reinforcement in some cases, specially in high-rise structures according to Table 6. (h) Great changes have been made in estimation of earthquake forces comparing different editions of the code. More detailed classication of seismic zones, more conservative calculation of soil effects and importance factor of structures are some of the steps forward in this procedure. Besides, the response modication factor of concentrically braced frames is reduced from R = 7 to R = 6 in the second and third editions, which leads to higher estimation of base shear.
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 190207 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal

IDA OF STEEL BRACED FRAMES

207

(i) The second attachment added to the second and third editions of the seismic code (standard no. 2800) has made a great revolution in design of columns and bracing members. Although most of the code requirements in the second and third editions are the same, small differences such as axial control of columns make the third edition distinct.

REFERENCES
AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction). 1989. Manual of Steel Construction. Allowable Stress Design 1989. AISC ASD89. AISC: Chicago, IL. BHRC (Building and Housing Research Center). 1986. Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings. Standard No. 2800, 1st edn. BHRC: Tehran. BHRC (Building and Housing Research Center). 1998. Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings. Standard No. 2800, 2nd edn. BHRC: Tehran. BHRC (Building and Housing Research Center). 2004. Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings. Standard No. 2800, 3rd edn. BHRC: Tehran. Black RG, Popov E. 1980. Inelastic buckling of steel struts under cyclic load reversals. Report Number UCB/EERC. 80/40, University of California, Berkeley. Criseld MA. 1991. Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures, Vol. 1. John Wiley & Sons: New York. Mazzoni S. 2006. Manual of OpenSees 1.73. University of California: Berkeley, CA. Ministry of Housing. 2000. National Iranian Code of Minimum Building Loads. Standard No 519. Ministry of Housing: Tehran. Vamvatsikos D. 2002. Seismic Performance, Capacity and Reliability of Structures as Seen Through Incremental Dynamic Analysis. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University: California. Zayas V, Popov E. 1981. Inelastic structural modeling of braced offshore platforms for seismic loading. UCB/EERC-81/04, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 20, 190207 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/tal