Incremental dynamic analysis reveals structural failure probability increases with ground motion in K-EBF frames, indicating significant link damage effects.
Damage to structural members or joints can change the load transfer path of the structure. Additionally, structures may experience severe damage or even collapse due to the impact of aftershocks. To investigate the effects of beam-column joint damage, link damage, and aftershocks on the seismic performance of K-shaped eccentrically braced steel frame (K-EBF) structures, incremental dynamic analysis, fragility analysis, and collapse resistance evaluation were conducted using examples of 12-story and 18-story K-EBF structures. The results showed that considering beam-column joint damage, link damage, and aftershocks compared to not considering them, and the maximum inter-story drift ratio (θmax) of the 12-story and 18-story K-EBF structures increased by 11.1% and 20.1%, respectively, under fortification earthquakes, and by 30.0% and 56.7%, respectively, under rare earthquakes. The failure probability of the severe damage limit state of the 12-story and 18-story K-EBF structures increased by 1.0% and 3.0%, respectively, under fortification earthquakes, and by 15.3% and 24.0%, respectively, under rare earthquakes. Additionally, the minimum collapse margin ratios (CMRP = 10%) of the two structures decrease by 27.8% and 32.3%, respectively. The influence of aftershocks on the structural seismic response tends to intensify as the intensity of ground motion increases, and the beam-column joint damage and link damage further increases the failure probability of different damage limit states, leading to a decrease in the minimum collapse resistance coefficient of the structure. Therefore, in the seismic performance analysis of K-EBF structures, the effects of beam-column joint damage, link damage, and aftershocks should be fully considered to accurately reflect the response of structures under seismic actions. Overall, the impact of link damage, as well as aftershocks, on the structural collapse resistance is greater than that of beam-column joint damage.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ma et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: