Implementation of capacity design rules to steel structures in seismic regions (Part 2)

Dr. Borislav Belev Dept. of Steel and Timber Structures UACEG, Sofia, Bulgaria Model Validation and Simulation BAUHAUS Summer School August 2011

Lecture overview
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Introduction Basic concepts in seismic design Capacity design principles (CDP) Major seismic-resisting systems in steel Application of CDP to MRFs Application of CDP to CBFs Evolution of capacity design philosophy Concluding remarks
Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011 2

Application of CDP to MRFs

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

MRF: Major points to be discussed

Basic behaviour Factors influencing the cyclic response Capacity design statement Design options for achieving SCWB-action Basic design rules for ductility Basic capacity design rules Potential problems & issues
Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011 4

MRF: Basic behaviour

Beams and columns connected in moment resisting joints Lateral forces resisted mainly by flexural action of the beams and columns High-ductility system if properly designed Low elastic stiffness (possible P- effects and overall instability) Complex (3-D) stress-and-strain state in the frame joints detailing and exectuion is crusial Hidden interaction with the RC floor slabs
Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011 5

Factors influencing the cyclic response

Local buckling Lateral-torsional buckling Fracture (esp. at welded zones)

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011 6

Importance of plate slenderness

R =

u y pl = y y

(1) Cross-section Class 1 (2) Cross-section Class 2 (3) Cross-section Class 3 (4) Cross-section Class 4 Note: Classification to Eurocode 3
Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011 7

Capacity design statement (EC8)

1. MRFs shall be designed so that plastic hinges form in the beams OR in the beamto-column connections, but not in the columns; This requirement is waived at the base of the frame, at the top level of multi-storey buildings and for singlestorey buildings; Typical target plastic mechanism: strong-column weak-beam pattern

2.

3.

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

Design options for SCWB-action

FEMA 350 guidelines: Plastic hinges to be formed close to the column faces, but not at the connections Conventional approach local strengthening (haunches) Novel approach local weaking (RBS)

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

Typical response of MRF to increasing lateral loads

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

10

Column web panel: the third component of MRF

Web panels subject to distortion, which increases the lateral frame displacements and drifts; Estimation of horizontal shear force:

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

11

Basic design rules for beams

Cross-section class allowed:

Resistance and local ductility checks:

LT-Buckling check (not required if the beam is properly braced out-of-plane)

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011 12

Basic design rules for columns

General SCWB requirement: Resistance and stability checks for ampliified internal forces accounting for the beam overstrength:

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

13

Design rules for column web panels

Resistance in shear:

Shear buckling check (EC 3, Part 1-5) Strengthening options

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

14

Design rules for connections (bolted/welded)

Capacity design approach compulsory if the connections are not dissipative zones General design rule for adding overstrength to connections:
Rd = design resistance of connection Rfy = design plastic resistance of connected dissipative member (frame beam/girder) ov = material overstrength factor = 1,25

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

15

Potential problems & issues

The generic SCWB criterion does not specify the distribution of the column bending moments above and below the joint The -approach may underestimate the actual overstrength of beams when large gravity loading is present The max. bending moments and shears in the columns are not well predicted due to: Dynamic amplification from higher mode effects after beam hinging Plastic hinges forming non-simultaneously at all floor levels Columns deformations not similar to those predicted by elastic analysis and static pushover
Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011 16

(a) (b) (c)

Application of CDP to CBFs

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

17

CBF: Major points to be discussed

Basic behaviour Factors influencing the cyclic response Capacity design statement Basic design rules for brace members Basic capacity design rules Potential problems & issues

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

18

CBF: Basic behaviour

Beams, columns and braces arranged to form vertical cantilever trusses Lateral forces resisted mainly by truss action (tension and compression in the CBF members) Lower ductility than MRFs and EBFs High elastic stiffness (cost-effective for wind loads) Dissipation provided mainly by the brace members yielding in tension Seismic response depends strongly on the brace configurations (X, V, K, etc.) and slenderness Possible degradation under cyclic loading due to repeated brace yielding and buckling
Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011 19

Cyclic response of brace member

F
4

Tu TENSION

3 5 7 2

6 1

COMPRESSION

Cu

(Plot from: M.D. Engelhardt, AISC Teaching Module)

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

20

Factors influencing the brace cyclic response and ductility

Slenderness = max {Lcr,y / iy, Lcr,z / iz} Cross-sectional shape Slenderness of cross-section parts b/t and d/t Support type at member ends pinned or other

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

21

Inelastic response of inverted V-braces

Compressed brace members buckle first Tensile brace members yield next Unbalanced vertical force appears at the joint The beam flexural stiffness and strength very important for the force redistribution
Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011 22

Capacity design statement (EC8)

(Images from Rogers & Tremblay)

CBFs shall be designed so that yielding of the diagonals in

tension will take place before failure of the connections and before yielding or buckling of the beams or columns

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

23

Basic design rules for brace members

Slenderness limits of EC8: (a) for X-braces: (b) for V-braces and inverted V-braces: (c) for 1- and 2-storey bldgs no slenderness limit Limitation on brace cross-section class for V-braces:

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

24

Basic design rules for braces (cont.)

Resistance checks: (a) for X-bracings (b) for V-bracings Local ductility check Ned Npl,Rd Ned Nb,Rd (tensile strength) (buckling check)

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

25

Basic design rules for braces (cont.)

Provide homogeneous dissipative behaviour of the diagonals It should be checked that the maximum member overstrength i does not differ from the minimum value by more than 25% Conclusion: the brace cross-sections shall be gradually reduced along the height of the building. Assuming equal cross-sections of the brace members in all storeys will adversely concentrate the inelastic response in the ground storey only !!!

i = member overstrength factor, = system overstrength factor

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011 26

Capacity design rules for the beams and columns

Resistance and stability checks for the following amplified internal forces:

Beams of inverted V-bracings: post-buckling scenario

Npl,Rd
( 0,7 Npl,Rd ) sin 0,3Npl,Rd

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

27

Design rules for connections (bolted/welded)

Capacity design concept compulsory if the connections are not dissipative zones General design rule of EC8 for adding extrastrength to connections:
Rd = design resistance of connection Rfy = design plastic resistance of connected dissipative member For brace members Rfy = Npl,Rd ov =1,25

1,1ovNpl,Rd

1,1ovNpl,Rd

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

28

Desired sequence of connection failure modes

(Source: Prof. Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips) Capacity design rule for bolts: shear resistance 1.2 x bearing resistance Conclusion: high strength bolts (grades 8.8 and 10.9) preferred
Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011 29

Gusset plate failures

Out-of-plane buckling mode of braces protects gusset plates and frame joints from fracture Fold-line ductile cyclic response if flexible portion is available Net-section fracture, block shear and local buckling shall be avoided by proper design checks + detailing

Brittle fracture

Ductile response
Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

2t-rule (AISC)
30

Innovative solutions for brace end connections

Standardized high-strength connectors for seismic applications with CHS

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

31

Potential problems & issues

Major parameter for brace overstrength the slenderness ratio: what limits of to use? Buckling resistance drops significantly after several loading cycles Uniform yielding along height difficult to achieve X-braces: modelling issues; tension-based design or compression-based design ? Overestimation of column compressive forces in high-rise buildings and expensive design -factor approach may result in severe errors
Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011 32

Modelling of X-braces for analysis

If linear elastic analysis is used

(pseudostatic or response spectrum analyses) EC8 requires compressive brace members not to be included in the model (suitable for low-rise) If nonlinear nonlinear analysis is used both brace members can be included if their pre- and post-buckling behaviour is accounted for in the model
Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

33

Potential problems & issues (contd)

How to calculate force demands for capacity design of beams and columns: local versus global approach ? F3 F2 F1
Uplift !!!
0.3Npl 0.3Npl Npl Npl

Global approach

NEd,E 0

Local approach

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

34

Evolution of capacity design philosophy

Structural fuse concept Damage-tolerant structures (Prof. A. Wada) Performance-based design with: - Explicit performance objectives for at least two seismic intensity levels - Direct comparison of seismic demands vs. capacities via nonlinear analyses - Damage limitation not only to structure, but also to nonstructural components and equipment
Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011 35

Structural fuse concept (SFC)

SFC uses the idea of protecting the electric circuits by inserting fuses - sacrificeable and replaceable (relative cheap) components that limit the damage in extreme situations.The fuses are the weakest links of the system; Structural fuses have the following functions: - dissipate a major part of seismic input energy - keep primary structure deformations in elastic range - provide a predictable response of the system First implementation: the EBF-system Further developments: Buckling-restrained braces (BRB) Rocking systems Passive energy dissipation systems
Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011 36

Eccentrically braced frames (EBF)

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

37

Eccentrically braces frames (EBF)

A hybrid system which combines the strong points of the MRF (high ductility) and CBF (high elastic stiffness) The inelastic action is restricted within special beam segments (links) The brace members are not dissipative zones anymore Deformation capacity of the links strongly depends on their length and cross-section resistances to shear and bending Link elements could be made replaceable by using endplate bolted connections, but this worsens the beam continuity

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

38

EBF link elements

Plastic link rotation angle (demand) : p = (L/e) p The eccentric brace configuration amplifies the interstorey drift: e.g. for e = 0.2L p = 5 p

Short links (e1.6Mpl / Vpl) preferred: p,c = 0.08 Rad (capacity) Closely spaced web stiffeners to suppress the web shear buckling
Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011 39

Buckling-restrained braces (BRB)

Also known as Unbonded brace Symmetrical response in tension and compression due to avoided buckling Enhanced energy dissipating capacity Capacity design approach compulsory due to brace overstrength (strain hardening)

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

40

Rocking systems (fuses at base)

(Image from Matt Eatherton et. al paper)

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011 41

Passive energy dissipation systems

Classification of FEMA 450 (Chapter 15: Structures with damping systems) The damping system (DS) may be external or internal to the structure and may have no shared elements, some shared elements, or all elements in common with the seismic-force-resisting system (SFRS).

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

42

Basic components of damping systems

1 = Primary frame; 2 = Damper device; 3 = Supporting member

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

43

Basic types of damper devices

1. Displacement-dependent devices (metallic dampers, friction dampers) 2. Velocity-dependent devices (fluid viscous dampers, solid visco-elastic dampers, etc.) 3. Other types (shape-memory alloys, self-centering devices, etc.)

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

44

Expected benefits
Added damping (viscous dampers) Added stiffness and damping (visco-elastic, metallic, friction dampers) As a result, enhanced control of the interstorey drifts The capacity design is not abandoned, but the sources of overstrength in the dissipative zones (dampers) are essentially reduced Seismic response is much more predictable than in conventional structures -----------------------------------------In new structures: Enhanced performance (reduced damage) Less stringent detailing for ductility In existing structures: Alternative solution to new shear walls (speed-up retrofit works) Correction of irregularities Supression of torsional response
Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011 45

Example of capacity design with dampers

Seismic protection of industrial facility Design PGA=0.24g, I=1.0, Soil type=B (stiff soil) Seismic weight W=7800 kN Design objective: To reduce the base shear to levels below 1100 kN, for which the existing supporting RCstructure was originally designed Conventional design of the steel structure as CBF system with chevron braces was inappropriate due to higher base shear level Design solution: use friction dampers with slip capacity of 50-60 kN per device (total slip capacity per direction ~ 600 kN) to protect the foundations
Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011 46

Check of the energy dissipating capacity

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

47

Under construction

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

48

Concluding remarks
Steel structures cannot be considered ductile by default The capacity design approach helps for providing more predictable structural response to unpredictable seismic actions The capacity design philosophy has evolved to new structural systems based on structural fuse concept The practical application of the CDP cannot be covered in detail by the design codes and requires engineering judgement for each particular project Nonlinear analyses to verify the system overstrength and target plastic mechanism are strongly recommended The passive energy dissipation systems which make best use of structural fuse concept are now a mature and reliable technology for seismic protection
Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011 49

End of Part 2
Thank you for your attention ! Questions or comments?

Model Validation and Simulation, BAUHAUS Summer School, Aug. 2011

50