Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 16, Issue 9, pp 4159–4189 | Cite as

An adjusted design approach for concentrically braced frames in low-to-moderate seismicity areas

  • Alper Kanyilmaz
  • Hervé Degée
  • Carlo Andrea Castiglioni
Original Research Paper
  • 136 Downloads

Abstract

Steel concentrically braced frame (CBF) configuration is a common construction application in Europe. In the low-to-moderate seismicity context, European building codes provide two alternative design methods for CBFs; engineers have to choose between a “non-dissipative” method (DCL) neglecting all seismic provisions, and a “dissipative” one (DCM), applying its complex and expensive ductility requirements. Currently, the preferred method is the former one, because of its simplicity. Such a choice may lead on one side to oversized profiles that are unduly expensive, on the other side to possibly unsafe solutions due to the unpredictable nature of the regions characterized by low-to-moderate seismicity, where rare but strong earthquakes are foreseeable. On the other hand, enforcing engineers to apply strict “high-dissipative” rules seems too conservative for this case, which would result in over-safe, but uneconomic structures. This article proposes an adjusted design approach for the low-to-moderate seismicity design of CBF structures, aiming to satisfy both economy and safety criteria. The proposed approach is based on the exploitation of the three features of CBF systems, which have not been deeply investigated so far: “frame action provided by gusset plates”, “contribution of compression diagonal and its post-buckling strength and stiffness”, and “energy dissipation capacity of non-ductile bracing joint connections”. The paper investigates these aspects by means of incremental dynamic analysis of case studies, based on the numerical models calibrated on full-scale experimental tests published elsewhere by the authors. As a result, it provides design recommendations and presents economic comparisons between the buildings designed with current Eurocode approach and the proposed one.

Keywords

Low-to-moderate seismicity Concentrically braced frames Frame action Compression diagonal Bracing joints Preloaded bolts 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This article presents some of the outcomes obtained in the MEAKADO project coordinated by Prof. Hervé Degée, which has been carried out with the financial grant of the Research Program of the Research Fund for Coal and Steel of the European Commission (RFSR-CT-2013-00022).

References

  1. Aboosaber M, Hines EM (2011) Modeling reserve system performance for low-ductility braced frames, Interim report submitted to: the American Institute of Steel Construction under the Contract: “Moderate ductility dual systems and reserve capacity” Tufts University, Report no. TUSSR-2011/1, July 2011Google Scholar
  2. American Institute of Steel Construction (2010) Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC 341-05, March 9, 2005, incl. Supplement No. 1Google Scholar
  3. Bradley CR, Fahnestock LA, Hines EM, Sizemore JG (2017) Full-scale cyclic testing of low-ductility concentrically braced frames. J Struct Eng 143(6).  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001760
  4. Brandonisio G, Toreno M, Grande E, Mele E, De Luca A (2012) Seismic design of concentric braced frames. J Constr Steel Res 78:22–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.06.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Costanzo S, D’Aniello M, Landolfo R (2017) Seismic design criteria for Chevron CBFs: European vs North American codes (part-1). J Constr Steel Res 135:83–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.04.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Degée H, Henriques J, Vleminckx L, Denoel V, Hoffmeister B, Wieschollek M, Castiglioni CA, Kanyilmaz A, Martin PO, Rodier A, Couchaux M, Calderon I, Aramburu A, Galazzi A, Cornil A, Duchene Y, Radu J (2018) Design of steel and composite structures with limited ductility requirements for optimized performances in moderate earthquake areas, Final report MEAKADO RFSR-CT-2013-00022. European Comission, Research Fund for Coal and SteelGoogle Scholar
  7. ECCS45 Technical Committee 1—Structural Safety and Loadings Technical Working Group 1.3—Seismic Design (1986) Recommended testing procedure for assessing the behaviour of structural steel elements under cyclic loadsGoogle Scholar
  8. Elghazouli A (2009) Assessment of European seismic design procedures for steel framed structures. Bull Earthq Eng 8:65–89.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-009-9125-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. EN 1090-2 (2011) Execution of steel structures and aluminium structures part 2: technical requirements for steel structuresGoogle Scholar
  10. EN 1993-1-1 (2005) European standard. Eurocode 3: design of steel structures—Part 1–1: general rules and rules for buildingsGoogle Scholar
  11. EN1998-1-1 (2005) Eurocode 8—design of structures for earthquake resistance-Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildingsGoogle Scholar
  12. Eurocode 3: design of steel structures - Part 1–8: design of joints, 2005Google Scholar
  13. Gioncu V, Mazzolani F (2014) Seismic design of steel structures. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  14. Kanyilmaz A (2015a) Validation of fiber-based distributed plasticity approach for steel bracing models. Civil Eng J 1:1–13Google Scholar
  15. Kanyilmaz A (2015b) Inelastic cyclic numerical analysis of steel struts using distributed plasticity approach. In: COMPDYN 2015—5th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, National Technical University of Athens, pp 3663–3674Google Scholar
  16. Kanyilmaz A (2017a) Secondary frame action in concentrically braced frames designed for moderate seismicity: a full scale experimental study. Bull Earthq Eng 15:2101–2127.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0054-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kanyilmaz A (2017b) Role of compression diagonals in concentrically braced frames in moderate seismicity: a full scale experimental study. J Constr Steel Res 133:1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.01.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kanyilmaz A (2018) Moderate ductility of the bracing joints with preloaded bolts. Bull Earthq Eng 16:503–527.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0208-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kanyilmaz A, Castiglioni CA (2015) Performance of multi-storey composite steel-concrete frames with dissipative fuse devices. In: COMPDYN 2015—5th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, pp 334–348Google Scholar
  20. Kanyilmaz A, Castiglioni CA, Degèe H, Martin P (2015) A preliminary assessment of slenderness and over-strength homogenity criteria used in the design of concentrically braced steel frames in moderate seismicity. In: COMPDYN 2015—5th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, pp 3599–609Google Scholar
  21. Kazemzadeh Azad S, Topkaya C, Astaneh-Asl A (2017) Seismic behavior of concentrically braced frames designed to AISC341 and EC8 provisions. J Constr Steel Res 133:383–404.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.02.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kelly DJ, Zona JJ (2006) Design tips for steel in low or moderate seismicity regions. Mod Steel Constr 46(2):50–56Google Scholar
  23. Landolfo R (2012) Assessment of EC8 provisions for seismic design of steel structures, 1st edn. ECCS TC13 Seismic Design, ECCS - European Convention for Constructional SteelworkGoogle Scholar
  24. Longo A, Montuori R, Piluso V (2008) Failure mode control of X-braced frames under seismic actions. J Earthq Eng 12(5):728–759.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460701572955 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marino EM, Nakashima M, Mosalam KM (2005) Comparison of European and Japanese seismic design of steel building structures. Eng Struct 27:827–840.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin PO, Rodier A, Couchaux M, Kanyilmaz A, Degee H (2017) Assessment of the ductile behaviour of CBF structures considering energy dissipation in bolted joints. In: EUROSTEEL 2017, September 13–15, Ernst & Sohn, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  27. Mayer Rosa D (1993) Towards uniform earthquake hazard assessment. Analisi Di Geofisica XXXVI:93–102Google Scholar
  28. Murty CVR, Malik JN (2008) Challenges of low-to-moderate seismicity in India. Electron J Struct Eng 8:77–87Google Scholar
  29. Nordenson GJP, Bell GR (2000) Seismic design requirements for regions of moderate seismicity. Earthq Spectra 16:205–225.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586091 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. NTC 2008 (2008) Decreto Ministeriale 14/1/2008 - norme tecniche per le costruzioni. Ministry of Infrastructures and Transportations, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  31. Pinto PE (2000) Design for low/moderate seismic risk. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 33:303–324Google Scholar
  32. Sabelli R (2001) Research on improving the design and analysis of earthquake-resistant steel-braced frames. NEHRP professional fellowship report EERI, pp 1–142Google Scholar
  33. Shen J, Seker O, Akbas B, Seker P, Momenzadeh S, Faytarouni M (2017) Seismic performance of concentrically braced frames with and without brace buckling. Eng Struct 141:461–481.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.03.043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stoakes CD (2012) Beam-column connection flexural behavior and seismic collapse performance of concentrically braced frames. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  35. Tremblay R (2002) Inelastic seismic response of steel bracing members. J Constr Steel Res 58:665–701.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0143-974X(01)00104-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tremblay R, Archambault M-H, Filiatrault A (2003) Seismic response of concentrically braced steel frames made with rectangular hollow bracing members. J Struct Eng 129:1626–1636.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:12(1626) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Uriz P, Mahin S (2008) Toward earthquake-resistant design of concentrically braced steel-frame structures, PEER report 2008/08 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center College of Engineering University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  38. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 514:491–514.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Strand7 Pty Ltd. (2014) http://www.strand7.com/

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering, Politecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly
  2. 2.Hasselt UniversityHasseltBelgium

Personalised recommendations