seismic of older concentrically braced frames
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Seismic of Older Concentrically Braced Frames

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 37

Seismic of Older Concentrically Braced Frames - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 73 Views
  • Uploaded on

Seismic of Older Concentrically Braced Frames. Charles Roeder (PI) Dawn Lehman, Jeffery Berman (co-PI) Stephen Mahin (co-PI [email protected] ) Po- C hien Hsiao (GSR) University of Washington. Seismic Vulnerability of CBFs.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Seismic of Older Concentrically Braced Frames' - makan


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
seismic of older concentrically braced frames

Seismic of OlderConcentrically Braced Frames

Charles Roeder (PI)

Dawn Lehman, Jeffery Berman(co-PI) Stephen Mahin (co-PI [email protected])

Po-Chien Hsiao (GSR)

University of Washington

seismic vulnerability of cbfs
Seismic Vulnerability of CBFs
  • Current research has focused on improving seismic performance of Special Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs).
  • Redesign of gusset plate can double drift capacity.
  • Prior to 1988, modern capacity-design principles were not in place.
  • Preliminary study to evaluate the vulnerability of older CBFs using PBSE and ATC P695.
changing the design of scbfs
Changing the Design of SCBFs

Post-1988/Beyond (SCBF)

Pre-1988 (NCBF)

  • Brace
    • Kl/r <~ 100
    • b/t – seismically compact (1997)
  • Gusset
    • Designed for brace material overstrength
    • Accommodate out-of-plane rotation of brace
      • Conventional: linear
      • Improved: elliptical
  • Brace
    • No limit on KL/r
    • No limit on b/t
  • Gusset
    • Nominal tension capacity of the brace (lateral forces)
    • No provisions accommodating out-of-plane rotation of the brace
comparing scbfs and ncbfs
Comparing SCBFs and NCBFs
  • Experimental Results
  • Analytical Modeling
  • Performance Evaluation
slide6

Load Beam

Strong

Floor

Actuator

HSS 5x5x3/8

Brace

W12x72

Columns

Strong Wall

W16X45 Beams

UW : Single-Story SCBF

scbf clearance types
SCBF: Clearance types

Straight line (2t) Elliptical (8t)

(AISC Recommendation)

Elliptical clearance allows a more compact plate

ncbf connection variations
NCBF: Connection Variations
  • Extensive!
  • Some Examples…
example pre 1988 connection
Example Pre-1988 Connection
  • Bolted end-plateconnection
  • Relative to SCBF:
    • Shorter brace-to-gusset length
    • Gusset and associated connections aretypically weaker than brace
comparison of three tests
Comparison of Three Tests
  • Current AISC DesignProcedure
  • Improved (Balanced) Design
  • Older (Pre-1988)Design
improved scbf response brace
Improved SCBF Response: Brace

1. Hinging at Center

2. Cupping

4. Fracture

3. Tearing

improved scbf extensive yielding in gusset
Improved SCBF: Extensive Yielding in Gusset
  • Brace buckling and yielding
  • Extensive yielding and OOP rotation of gusset plate
  • Yielding of beams and columns
analytical modeling of cbfs

Composite fiber sections

Rigid elements

Spring-type model of gussets

Increased strength element

Simple connection

10 beam-column elements with initial imperfection through entire length

Analytical Modeling of CBFs

required properties of scbf model
Required Properties of (SCBF) Model
  • Buckling behavior of the brace is a key elements in the SCBF seismic response.
  • Significant deformation of the gusset plate connectionsand included in model. Variations in the design are important.
  • Local yielding of the beams and columns must be simulated.
nonlinear model
Nonlinear Model
  • OpenSees was selected as analysis platform.
  • Fiber-type (nonlinear beam-column) element for braces, beams and columns.
  • Custom connection element(s) developed.
  • Model response beyond brace/connection failure to collapse
scbf model
SCBF Model

Well-Discretized Fiber Cross Section

Minimum of 10 Elements along Brace Length

Giuffé-Menegotto-Pinto model

HSS

Wide Flange

overview of scbf model
Overview of SCBF Model

Model

Connection Model

Spring-type of Shear Tab

Proposed model of gusset plate connections

Rigid Links

Brace

Fracture

scbf connection model
SCBF: Connection Model
  • Out-of-plane rotation of gusset plate
  • Rigid offsets: brace, beam & column
modeling brace fracture
Modeling Brace Fracture
  • Fracture results from low-cycle fatigue at middle of brace
  • Equivalent plastic strain limit used for continuum analyses; not available from OpenSees analysis approachused local measure of maximum strain.

Brace Fracture

Initial Tearing

Local Pinching

basis of model
Basis of Model
  • 44 Specimens
  • 16 Test programs
  • Wide range of slenderness(34-167), compactness (7-28),& strengths
model implementation ncbf

Load

Fracture triggered

Ke

Dlimit

Disp.

(Ke and Dlimit were calibrated by NCBF32.)

Model Implementation: NCBF

Model

Connection Model

Proposed spring-type model of gusset plate connections combined with axial fracture model of brace-to-gusset connections.

Axial Fracture Model of Connection Calibrated by NCBF32

ConnectionFracture

comparison of three frames
Comparison of Three Frames

Improved

Current

Pre-1988 (NCBF)

dynamic response analysis
Dynamic Response Analysis
  • 3, 9 and 20 story buildings (SAC SMRF) buildings
  • Emphasis on 3-story building model.
  • 40 Seattle ground motions (scaled)
  • 2% and 10% in 50 yr. events
building height
Building Height

Impact of building height as or more significant than R

evaluation of scbf and ncbf fema p 695 analysis
Evaluation of SCBF and NCBF:FEMA P-695 Analysis

Collapse Level Ground Motions

ŜCT

CMR

SMT

MCE Ground Motions

Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.5R

Cs

1.5Cd

CMR

SDMT/1.5R

SDMT

SDCT

Spectral Displacement

incremental dynamic analysis
Incremental Dynamic Analysis

Pre-1988 NCBF

ŜCT

ŜCT

SMT

SMT

NCBF

SCBF

conclusions
Conclusions
  • Pre-1988 CBF vulnerable to “premature” connection failure.
  • Retrofit methods untested; largely absent in ASCE-31
  • Connection model is critical to accurate response and performance prediction of all CBFs. Move beyond “pinned” or “fixed”.
  • Pre-1988 CBF sustains significant damage at lower levels of seismic excitation, yet exceeds performance of SCBF from FEMA 695 evaluation. Careful(re-)consideration of this approach as a design basis is needed.
ad