Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 30750
Seismic Behavior of Steel Moment-Resisting Frames for Uplift Permitted in Near-Fault Regions

Authors: M. Tehranizadeh, E. Shoushtari Rezvani


Seismic performance of steel moment-resisting frame structures is investigated considering nonlinear soil-structure interaction (SSI) effects. 10-, 15-, and 20-story planar building frames with aspect ratio of 3 are designed in accordance with current building codes. Inelastic seismic demands of the superstructure are considered using concentrated plasticity model. The raft foundation system is designed for different soil types. Beam-on-nonlinear Winkler foundation (BNWF) is used to represent dynamic impedance of the underlying soil. Two sets of pulse-like as well as no-pulse near-fault earthquakes are used as input ground motions. The results show that the reduction in drift demands due to nonlinear SSI is characterized by a more uniform distribution pattern along the height when compared to the fixed-base and linear SSI condition. It is also concluded that beneficial effects of nonlinear SSI on displacement demands is more significant in case of pulse-like ground motions and performance level of the steel moment-resisting frames can be enhanced.

Keywords: Soil-Structure Interaction, tall building, uplifting, soil plasticity, near-fault earthquake

Digital Object Identifier (DOI):

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 772


[1] Somerville P, Smith N, Graves R, Abrahamson N. “Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity”. Seismological Society Letters 68(1): 180–203, 1997.
[2] Somerville P. “Development of an improved ground motion representation for near-fault ground motions”. SMIP98 Seminar on Utilization of Strong-Motion Data, Oakland, CA, 1998.
[3] Bolt BA. Earthquakes. W.H. Freeman: New York, NY, 1993.
[4] MacRae GA, Mattheis J. “Three-dimensional steel building response to near-fault motions”. Journal of Structural Engineering 126(1): 117–126, 2000.
[5] Chopra A, Chintanapakdee C. “Comparing response of SDF systems to near-fault and far-fault earthquake motions in the context of spectral regions”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 30(12): 1769–1789, 2001.
[6] Longjun X, Rodriguez-Marek A, Lili X. “Design spectra including effect of rupture directivity in near-fault region”. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 5(2): 159–170, 2006.
[7] Applied Technology Council (ATC), “Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings”, Report No. ATC 3-06, Redwood City, CA, 1978.
[8] FEMA, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, Part 1: Provisions, FEMA 450-1/2003 Edition, prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C, 2004.
[9] Bertero V State of the art report on: design criteria. In: Proceedings of 11th world conference on earthquake engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, Oxford, Pergamon, 1996.
[10] “Tassios TP Seismic design: state of practice”. In: Proceedings of 11th european conference on earthquake engineering, Rotterdam, AA Balkema, pp 255–267, 1998.
[11] “Priestley MJN Performance based seismic design”. In: Proc. 12th world conference on earthquake engineering (12WCEE), Auckland, New Zealand, Paper No. 2831, 2000.
[12] Faccioli E, Paolucci R, Vivero G “Investigation of seismic soil-footing interaction by large scale cyclic tests and analytical models”. In: Proc., 4th int. conf. recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, 2001.
[13] Acikgoz, S and DeJong, M.J “The interaction of elasticity and rocking in flexible structures allowed to uplift”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics (published online: doi: 10.1002/eqe.2181), 2012.
[14] Acikgoz, S and DeJong, M.J, “Characterizing the Vulnerability of Flexible Rocking Structures to Strong Ground Motions”. Proc., 15WCEE, Lisbon, Portugal, 2012.
[15] ASCE-7. “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings. Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)”, Reston, Virginia, 2010.
[16] AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction). “Specification for Structural Steel Buildings”. AISC: Chicago, IL, 2005.
[17] PEER, Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees) –development platform by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER),,2008.
[18] Gajan, S., Raychowdhury, P., Hutchinson, T. C., Kutter, B. L., and Stewart., J. P. “Application and Validation of Practical Tools for Nonlinear Soil-Foundation Interaction Analysis”, Earthquake Spectra 26(1), 111–129, 2010.
[19] Harden, C. W., and Hutchinson, T. C. “Beam-on-nonlinear-Winkler-foundation modeling of shallow”, rocking-dominated footings, Earthquake Spectra 25(2), 277–300, 2009.
[20] Harden, C. W., Hutchinson, T., Martin, G. R., and Kutter, B. L. “Numerical modeling of the nonlinear cyclic response of shallow foundations”, Report No.: PEER-2005/04, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 2005.
[21] Raychowdhury, P., and Hutchinson, T. C. “Nonlinear material models for Winkler-based shallow foundation response evaluation,” Proc. of GeoCongress 2008: Characterization, Monitoring, and Modeling of GeoSystems, New Orleans, LA, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 179, A. N. Alshawabkeh, K. R. Reddy, and M. V. Khire (eds.), 686–693, 2008.
[22] “FEMA, NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions”: Design Examples, EMA P-751/2012, prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C, 2009.
[23] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). “Quantification of building seismic performance factors”. FEMA P695, Washington DC, 2009.
[24] Baker, J. W. “Quantitative classification of near–fault ground motions using wavelet analysis,” Bulletin of Seismological Society of America 97(5), 1486–501, 2007.