SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Civil Engineering / 2021 / Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 1

Comparison on Dynamic Performance of CBFs Designed as per TEC2007 and TEC2018

DBYBHY-2007 ve TBDY-2018 Esas Alınarak Boyutlandırılan MÇÇÇ’lerin Deprem Performanslarının Karşılaştırılması

Mehmet Bakır BOZKURT
Barış SERİN
Pages
10441–10476
Publication Date
2021-01-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results indicate that the archetypes designed as per TSCB-2018 are more reliable in CBFs employing both chevron and split-X brace configuration.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, dynamic performance of six chevron and split-X braced concentrically braced frames (CBFs) having 3, 6 and 9 number of stories designed as per Turkish Seismic Code 2007 (TSC-2007) and Turkish Seismic Code for Buildings 2018 (TSCB-2018) were compared.
📊
Key Findings & Data:By using Opensees software, a total of 1056 nonlinear time history analyses was conducted under 44 far-field ground motions scaled based on TSC-2007 and TSCB-2018 by considering maximum considered earthquake having a 2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results indicate that the archetypes designed as per TSCB-2018 are more reliable in CBFs employing both chevron and split-X brace configuration.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2007 Verileri
⚙️Variables:DBYBHY-2007 · TBDY-2018 · merkezi çelik çaprazlı çerçeve

Abstract

In this study, dynamic performance of six chevron and split-X braced concentrically braced frames (CBFs) having 3, 6 and 9 number of stories designed as per Turkish Seismic Code 2007 (TSC-2007) and Turkish Seismic Code for Buildings 2018 (TSCB-2018) were compared. By using Opensees software, a total of 1056 nonlinear time history analyses was conducted under 44 far-field ground motions scaled based on TSC-2007 and TSCB-2018 by considering maximum considered earthquake having a 2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years. The results indicate that the archetypes designed as per TSCB-2018 are more reliable in CBFs employing both chevron and split-X brace configuration.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, Deprem Bölgelerinde Yapılacak Binalar Hakkında Yönetmelik 2007 (DBYBHY-2007) ve Türkiye Bina Deprem Yönetmeliği 2018 (TBDY-2018) esaslarına göre tasarlanmış 3, 6 ve 9 katlı toplam altı adet ters-V ve parçalı-X tipi merkezi çaprazlı çelik çerçevelerin (MÇÇÇ’lerin) dinamik performansları karşılaştırılmıştır. DBYBHY-2007 ve TBDY-2018’de tanımlanan 50 yılda aşılma olasılığı %2 olan en büyük deprem yer hareketine göre ölçeklendirilen uzak alan kayıtlı 44 adet deprem yer hareketi altında Opensees yazılımı kullanılarak toplam 1056 adet zaman tanım alanında doğrusal olmayan analizler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar, hem ters-V hem de parçalı-X tipi MÇÇÇ’lerde TBDY-2018 esaslarına göre boyutlandırılan yapıların daha güvenilir olduğunu göstermiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

BOZKURT, M. B., SERİN, B. (2021). Comparison on Dynamic Performance of CBFs Designed as per TEC2007 and TEC2018. Turkish Journal of Civil Engineering, Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 1, 10441–10476. https://ajindex.com/articles/864178

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, ANSI/AISC 341–16, Chicago, 2016
  2. Eurocode 8, Design of structures for earthquake resistance - part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, EN 1998-1:2004, European Standard, Comit Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, 2004
  3. National Research Council of Canada, NBCC-2015: national building code of Canada, Ottawa, 2015
  4. Bayındır ve İskan Bakanlığı. Deprem bölgelerinde yapılacak binalar hakkında yönetmelik, DBYBHY-2007, Ankara, 2007
  5. İçişleri Bakanlığı, Afet ve Acil Durum Yönetimi Başkanlığı. Türkiye bina deprem yönetmeliği, TBDY-2018, Ankara, 2018
  6. Popov, E.P., Takanashi, K., Roeder, C.W., Structural steel bracing systems: behavior under cyclic loading, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1976 (Report No. UCB/EERC-76/17)
  7. Zavas, V.A., Popov, E.P., Mahin, S.A., Cyclic inelastic buckling of tubular steel braces, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1980 (Report No. UCB/EERC-80/16)
  8. Wakabayashi, M., et al., Experiments on the elastic-plastic behavior of bars subjected to cyclic axial loads, AIJ, Proceedings of Annual Meeting, Japan, October, 1972
  9. Suzuki, T., et al., Experimental study on the elasto-plastic behavior of tensile braced frames, Transactions of the Architectural Institute of Japan, 228: 57-64, 1975
  10. Inoue, K. and M. Murakami, A study on the plastic design of braced multi-story steel frames (Part 3: experimental study on the elastic plastic behavior of 3 story 3 bay braced and un-braced steel frames), Transactions of the Architectural Institute of Japan, 1978
  11. Wakabayashi, M., T. Nakamura and N. Yoshida, Experimental studies on the elastic-plastic behavior of braced frames under repeated horizontal loading – Part 3: experiments of one story-one bay braced frames, Bulletin of the Disaster Prevention Research Institute, 29(4): 143-168, 1980
  12. Workman, G.H., The inelastic behavior of multi-story braced frame structures subjected to earthquake excitation, U. of Michigan Research Report, September, 1969
  13. Kahn, L.F., and Hanson, R.D., Inelastic cycles of axially loaded steel members, Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, No. ST5, Vol. 102, pgs 947-59, 1976
  14. A.K. Jain, R.D. Hanson, S.C. Goel, Hysteretic cycles of axially loaded steel members, J. Struct. Div. 106 (8) 1777–1795, 1980 [15] Black R.,