Seismic of older concentrically braced frames
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 37

Seismic of Older Concentrically Braced Frames PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 41 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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.

Download Presentation

Seismic of Older Concentrically Braced Frames

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


Experimental results

Experimental Results


Seismic of older concentrically braced frames

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


Comparison of l 2t p and e 8t p

Comparison of L-2tp and E-8tp


Response of pre 1988 cbf

Response of pre-1988 CBF


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


Limit state calibration

Limit State Calibration


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)


Predicting performance of cbfs

Predicting Performance of CBFs


Performance states atc

Performance States (ATC)


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


Scbf vs ncbf

SCBF vs. NCBF

VS.


Ncbf vs scbf

NCBF vs. SCBF


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


Results

Results


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.


Overview of new nees project

Overview of New NEES Project


Thank you

Thank You


  • Login