The computed hysteretic results of these four columns under monotonic loading and twoside cyclic

loading are shown in Figure 3. Comparison of envelope curves, together with the
monotonic results
are illustrated in Figure 4. The envelope curves are obtained by using the average values
of lateral
loads from the two sides (i.e. positive and negative sides) at each displacement
amplitude. It can be
seen that the computed ultimate strengths with one- and two-side cyclic loadings are
always a little
larger than monotonic results mainly due to the e_ect of cyclic strain hardening.
Moreover, strength
increase under two-side cyclic loading begins earlier than that under one-side cyclic
loading. The
possible reason lies in that the cyclic strain hardening phenomenon behaves signi_cantly
for the
columns subjected to two-side cyclic loading. On the other hand, the deterioration in the
strength
in the two-side cyclic loading case is greatly larger than that in both cases of the
monotonic
and one-side cyclic loading. Hence, it can be concluded that the ductility capacity
obtained from
the analysis under two-side cyclic loading is the most conservative. In fact, of the three
loading
patterns, the two-side cyclic loading is the closest to the loading case during an actual
earthquake
event.
3. PARAMETRIC STUDY
To investigate the e_ects of main parameters on the ultimate strength and ductility of
sti_ened
steel box columns, 27 columns are analysed using the 2SM to model material nonlinearity. The
parameters considered are: ange plate width{thickness ratio parameter Rf , column
slenderness
ratio parameter __, sti_ener's equivalent slenderness ratio parameter __s, magnitude of
axial load
P=Py, and material type of sti_eners. The scope of each parameter is Rf =0:25{0.56,
__=0:20{
0.50, __s =0:15{0.63, and P=Py =0:10{0.30. Geometrical properties of the analysed
columns are
Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2000; 29:1707{1722
STIFFENED STEEL BOX COLUMNS. PART 2 1711

Figure 3. Comparison of hysteretic curves of columns under monotonic loading and two-side
cyclic loading: (a) B2; (b) B3; (c) B6-15 and (d) B7.
Figure 4. Comparison of envelope curves under di_erent loading patterns: (a) B2; (b) B3; (c) B6-15
and (d) B7.

listed in Table I. Here, is the relative exural rigidity of one sti_ener, _ the optimum value
of obtained from linear buckling theory [8], h the column height, b the plate width, t the
plate
thickness, bs the sti_ener width, ts the sti_ener thickness, and _ the aspect ratio of ange
plate
between two diaphragms (= Ld=b; Ld is the diaphragm spacing). Material properties of
the columns