Many countries that faced a problem with earthquakes give attention to earthquake-resistant structures. Various types of lateral load resisting systems are required to overcome the problem, such as moment resisting frame (MRF), eccentrically braced frame (EBF), and also concentrically braced frame (CBF). These types of lateral load resisting system produce unique seismic responses after experiencing the earthquake ground motion, which could be contained a pulse effect. Ground motion with pulse effect was recorded in the station only if the near-fault earthquake occurred. Commonly, forward directivity (FD) and fling-step (FS) pulse effects were marked in the ground motion record from this type of earthquake. The FD and FS ground motions have produced a significant effect to the building structures. However, it was not clear how the FD and FS ground motion were affecting the seismic collapse performance of EBF combined with MRF. Therefore, this study has investigated the collapse performance of EBF applied between two MRFs. Thousands of nonlinear time history analyses were conducted to define the intensity measure (IM) that could produce the collapse state. The result indicates that FS is more destructive to EBF in comparison with FS. The IM of FS for probability of collapse of EBF could differ by 16.7% when it is compared with IM of FD.

1.
C. W.
Roeder
and
E. P.
Popov
, “Inelastic behavior of eccentrically braced steel frames under cyclic loading,”
Report No. UCB/EERC-77/18
(
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California
,
Berkeley, California
,
1977
).
2.
K. D.
Hjelmstad
and
E. P.
Popov
, “Seismic behavior of active beam link in eccentrically braced frames,”
Report No. UCB/EERC-83/15
(
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California
,
Berkeley, California
,
1983
).
3.
K. D.
Hjelmstad
and
E. P.
Popov
,
J. Struct. Eng. ASCE
109
(
10
)
2387
2403
(
1983
).
4.
M. D.
Engelhardt
and
E. P.
Popov
, “Behavior of long links in eccentrically braced frames,”
Report No. UCB/EERC-89/01
(
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California
,
Berkeley, California
,
1989
).
5.
AISC
,
Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC 341-10
,
American Institute of Steel Construction
,
Chicago, Illinois
(
2010
).
6.
R.
Eskandari
and
D.
Vafaei
,
Struct. Eng. Mech.
56
,
855
870
(
2015
).
7.
K. C.
Lin
,
C. J.
Lin
,
J. Y.
Chen
,
H. Y.
Chang
,
Struct. Saf.
32
,
174
182
(
2010
).
8.
S. K.
Azad
and
C.
Topkaya
,
J. Cons. Steel Res.
128
,
53
73
(
2017
).
9.
A. C.
Salmasi
and
M. R.
Sheidaii
,
Int. J. Steel Struc.
17
,
543
551
(
2017
).
10.
E.
Tapia-Hernández
and
S.
García-Carrera
,
J. Build. Eng.
26
, (
2019
).
11.
T. Y.
Yang
,
J.
Neitsch
,
M. A. Q.
Al-Janabi
,
D. P.
Tung
,
Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.
139
, (
2020
).
12.
J.
Ruiz-García
,
E.
Bojorquez
,
E.
Corona
,
Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.
115
,
119
128
(
2018
).
13.
J. L.
Harris
and
M. S.
Speicher
.
NEHRP NIST Technical Note
1863
1
(
2015
).
14.
PEER NGA West 2 Database
. Available at https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu
15.
Consortium of Organizations for Strong Motion Observation Systems (COSMOS)
. Available at http://www.strongmotion.org
16.
AISC
, Specification for structural steel buildings.
AISC
360
10
,
American Institute of Steel Construction
,
Chicago, Illinois
(
2010
).
17.
ASCE
,
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE/SEI 41-13)
,
American Society of Civil Engineers
,
Reston, VA
(
2014
).
18.
FEMA
,
Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings
,
FEMA
356
,
Federal Emergency Management Agency
,
Washington, D.C
(
2000
).
19.
D.
Vamvatsikos
and
C. A.
Cornell
,
Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn.
31
,
491
514
(
2002
).
20.
J. W.
Baker
,
Earthq. Spectra
,
31
,
579
599
(
2015
).
21.
K.
Porter
,
R.
Kennedy
,
R.
Bachman
,
Earthq. Spectra
,
23
,
471
489
(
2007
).
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.