Evaluation of sensitivity of CBFs for types of Bracing and story numbers

Asghari, A.; Azimi, B.

doi:10.24200/sci.2017.2375

Evaluation of sensitivity of CBFs for types of Bracing and story numbers

Authors

Faculty of Civil Engineering, Urmia University of Technology, Urmia, P.O. Box 57155-419, Iran

10.24200/sci.2017.2375

Abstract

Recently, there has been lots of studies about ductility reduction factor of CBFs, because AISCs seismic design provision has been changed significantly since 2010, So a comprehensive study is needed for seismic designing and ductility reduction factor of CBFs. In this study, about 160, 2D CBFs with different types of bracing are designed according to AISC-341, and ductility reduction factor of designed frames is compared for types and form of bracing in the height of frames. The results confirm that ductility reduction factor and response modification factor of CBFs, are mostly dependent on types and form of bracing. Also, maximum allowable height of OCBFs Can be reduced for some types of bracing and increased for some other types of bracings. for SCBFs ductility reduction factor depends on the bracing type and number of frame stories. For most of studied SCBFs, ductility reduction factor can't be achived for more than ten-story frames, so for these kind of frames, maximum allowable height should be decreased or smaller response modification factor should be used. For double large scale CBFs, Because of the enormous stiffness of one to seven story frames, ductility reduction factor can't be obtained and smaller response modification factor should be used.

Keywords

References

References:

1. Abazar Asghari, A. and Gandomi, A.H. "Ductility reduction factor and collapse mechanism evaluation of a new steel knee braced frame", Structure and Infrastructure Engineering Journal, Taylor and Francis (2015). DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2015.1009123.
2. Wijesundara, K.K., Nascimbene, R. and Rassati, G.A. "Modeling of different bracing configurations in multistorey concentrically braced frames using a fiberbeam based approach", Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 101, pp. 426-436 (2014).
3. Wijesundara, K.K., Bolognini, D., Nascimbene, R. and Calvi, G.M. "Review of design parameters of concentrically braced frames with RHS shape braces", Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 13(1 SUPPL. 1), pp. 109-131 (2009).
4. Wijesundara, K.K., Nascimbene, R. and Sullivan, T.J. "Equivalent viscous damping for steel concentrically braced frame structures", Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 9(5), pp. 1535-1558 (2011).
5. ATC., Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings, ATC-3-06, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California, pp. 45- 53 (1978).
6. ATC, Structural Response Modification Factors, ATC- 19, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California, pp. 5-32 (1995).
7. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE7), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (2010).
8. American Institute of steel construction (AISC-341), Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (2010).
9. Uriz, P., Filippou, F.C. and Mahin, S.A. "Model for cyclic inelastic buckling of steel braces", J. Struct. Eng., 134(4), pp. 619-628 (2008).
10. Uriz, P. and Mahin, S.A. "Toward earthquake-resistant design of concentrically braced steel-frame structures", PEER-2008/08, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), University of California, Berkeley, CA (2008).
11. Uang, C.M. and Nakashima, M. "Steel buddingrestrained braced frames", Chapter 16, Earthquake Engineering, From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering, Y. Bozorgnia and V.V. Bertero, Eds., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (2004).
12. Black, R.G. Wenger, W.A.B. Popov, E.P. "Inelastic buckling of steel struts under cyclic load reversals", Report No. UCB/EERC-80/40, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley (1980).
13. Uang, C.M. and Bertero, V.V. "Earthquake simulation tests and associated studies of a 0.3-scale model of a 6-story concentrically braced steel structure", Report No. UCB/EERC-86/10, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley (1986).
14. Whittaker, A.S., Uang, C.M. and Bertero, V.V. "An experimental study of the behavior of dual steel systems", Report No. UCB/EERC-88/14, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley (1990).
15. Khatib, I.F., Mahin, S.A. and Pister, K.S. "Seismic behavior of concentrically braced steel frames", Report No. UCB/EERC-88/01, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley (1988).
16. Roeder, C.W. "Seismic behavior of concentrically braced frame", Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 115(8), pp. 1837-56 (1989).
17. Remennikov, A.M. and Walpole, W.R. "Analytical prediction of seismic behavior for concentrically-braced steel systems", Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 26(8), pp. 859-74 (1997).
18. Tremblay, R. "Inelastic seismic response of steel bracing members", Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 58(5-8), pp. 665-701 (2002).
19. Balendra, T. and Huang, X. "Overstrength and ductility factors for steel frames designed according to BS 5950", Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 129(8), pp. 1019-35 (2003).
20. Kim, J. and Choi, H. "Response modification factors of chevron-braced frames", Engineering Structures, 27, pp. 285-300 (2005).
21. BHRC, Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings, Standard No. 2800 (3rd Edition) Building and Housing Research Center (2005).
22. ETABS, Integrated Building Design Software, nonlinear version 9.7.3, Berkeley (California), USA: Inc. (1995).
23. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC360), Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (2010).
24. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), "Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings", (FEMA 356), Washington, DC, November (2000).
25. Balendra, T. and Huang, X. "Overstrength and ductility factors for steel frames designed according to BS 5950", Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 129(8), pp. 1019-1035 (2003).
26. Newmark, N.M. and Hall, W.J. "Seismic design criteria for nuclear reactor facilities", Rep. No. 46, Building Practices for Disaster Mitigation, National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce (1973).
27. Newmark, N.M. and Hall, W.J. "EERI monograph series", Earthquake Spectra and Design, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California (1982).
28. Miranda, E. "Site-dependent strength reduction factors", Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 119(12), pp. 3503-3519 (1993).
29. Miranda, E., and Bertero, V.V. "Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant design", Earthquake Spectra, 10(2) pp. 357-379 (1994).
30. Pinho, R. "Shaking table testing of RC walls", ISET Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 37(4), pp. 119-142 (2000).
31. Faga, E., Rassati, G.A. and Nascimbene, R. "Seismic design of elevated steel tanks with concentrically braced supporting frames", Structures Congress 2012 - Proceedings of the 2012 Structures Congress, pp. 1473- 1484 (2012).
32. Wijesundara, K.K., Rassati, G.A., Nascimbene, R. and Bolognini, D. "Seismic performance of brace-beamcolumn connections in concentrically braced frames", Structures Congress, pp. 930-942 (2010).
33. Mpampatsikos, V., Nascimbene, R. and Petrini, L. "A critical review of the R.C. frame existing building assessment procedure according to EUROCODE and Italian Seismic Code", Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 12(S1), pp. 52-82 (2008).
34. Brunesi, E. and Nascimbene, R. "Extreme response of reinforced concrete buildings through fiber force-based finite element analysis", Engineering Structures, 69, pp. 206-215 (2014).
35. Brunesi, E., Nascimbene, R. and Rassati, G.A. "Response of partially-restrained bolted beam-to-column connections under cyclic loads", Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 97, pp. 24-38 (2014).
36. Brunesi, E., Nascimbene, R. and Rassati, G.A. "Seismic response of MRFs with partially-restrained bolted beam-to-column connections through FE analyses", Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 107, pp. 37- 49 (2015).