Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 14, Issue 12, pp 3613–3639 | Cite as

Dissipative devices for earthquake resistant composite steel structures: bolted versus welded solution

  • Marco Valente
  • Carlo A. Castiglioni
  • Alper Kanyilmaz
Original Research Paper

Abstract

This paper investigates and compares the seismic performance of two types of innovative repairable fuse devices for earthquake resistant composite steel frames through experimental tests and numerical analyses. The fuses are energy dissipating devices consisting of steel plates that can be welded or bolted to the beam web and bottom flange. The numerical analyses performed in this study are based on the results of experimental tests carried out on beam-to-column sub-assemblages equipped with both the types of fuse devices. The main differences in terms of hysteretic behavior and failure modes of the fuses are identified through the experimental campaign. Detailed three-dimensional finite element models of the beam-to-column sub-assemblages are then created to provide a deeper insight into both the response and the effectiveness of the two investigated devices. On the basis of the results of both the experimental tests and numerical analyses, simplified models of different types of fuses are developed in order to study the effects of bolted and welded devices on the seismic response of composite steel frames. The results are then extended to the case of three-dimensional building structures with different number of storeys. The experimental and numerical investigations prove the effectiveness of the fuses and highlight the main differences between the two possible solutions.

Keywords

Welded Bolted Fuse device Energy dissipation Numerical model Non-linear dynamic analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The studies reported in this paper were conducted within the scope of the FUSEIS (Dissipative Devices for Seismic Resistant Steel Frames, reference RSFR-CT-2008-00032) research project, financed by the Research Fund for Coal and Steel, of the European Commission.

References

  1. ABAQUS Theory Manual, USA, 2014Google Scholar
  2. Calado L, Proenca JM, Espinha M, Castiglioni CA (2013a) Hysteretic behavior of dissipative welded fuses for earthquake resistant composite steel and concrete frames. Steel Compos Struct 14(6):547–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Calado L, Proenca JM, Espinha M, Castiglioni CA (2013b) Hysteretic behavior of dissipative bolted fuses for earthquake resistant steel frames. J Constr Steel Res 85:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Castiglioni CA, Kanyilmaz A, Calado L (2012) Experimental analysis of seismic resistant composite steel frames with dissipative devices. J Constr Steel Res 76:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Danai D, Dougka G, Vayas I (2015) Seismic behavior of frames with innovative energy dissipation systems (FUSEIS1-2). Eng Struct 90:83–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elghazouli AY (2010) Assessment of European seismic design procedures for steel framed structures. Bull Earthq Eng 8(1):65–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EN 1993 (2004) Eurocode 3: design of steel structuresGoogle Scholar
  8. EN 1994 (2004) Eurocode 4: design of composite steel and concrete structuresGoogle Scholar
  9. EN 1998 (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistanceGoogle Scholar
  10. FEMA 356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildingsGoogle Scholar
  11. Giannuzzi D, Ballarini R, Hucklebridge A, Pollino M, Valente M (2014) Braced ductile shear panel: new seismic-resistant framing system. J Struct Eng ASCE 140(2):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mansour N, Christopoulos C, Tremblay R (2011) Experimental validation of replaceable shear links for eccentrically braced steel frames. J Struct Eng ASCE 137(10):1141–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. SAP2000 Static and dynamic finite element analysis of structures. Computers and Structures Inc., BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  14. Shen Y, Christopoulos C, Mansour N, Tremblay R (2011) Seismic design and performance of steel moment-resisting frames with nonlinear replaceable links. J Struct Eng ASCE 137(10):1107–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Soong TT, Spencer BF Jr (2002) Supplemental energy dissipation: state-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice. Eng Struct 24(3):243–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Vanmarcke EH, Cornell CA, Gasparini DA, Hou S (1976) SIMQKE: A program for artificial motion generation. Civil Engineering Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  17. Vasdravellis G, Valente M, Castiglioni CA (2009a) Behavior of exterior partial-strength composite beam-to-column connections: experimental study and numerical simulations. J Constr Steel Res 65(1):23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Vasdravellis G, Valente M, Castiglioni CA (2009b) Dynamic response of composite frames with different shear connection degree. J Constr Steel Res 65(10–11):2050–2061CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Valente
    • 1
  • Carlo A. Castiglioni
    • 1
  • Alper Kanyilmaz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering ABCPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations