26/10/2021

The four basic systems

The four basic systems are assumed as the prime groups which can be associated to the levels of the
structural system hierarchy as proposed by Falconer and Beedle. These primary systems are:
1. A bearing wall structure is comprised of planar vertical elements, which form all or part of the exterior
walls and in many instances the interior walls as well. They resist both vertical and horizontal loads and
are mainly made in concrete (see Figure 9).
2. A core structure is comprised of load bearing walls arranged in a closed form where the vertical
transportation systems are usually concentrated. This arrangement allows flexibility in the use of the
building space outside the core. The core can be designed to resist both vertical and horizontal loads.
Figure 10 shows some examples of this system. In the upper part of the figure, there is a central core
from which floors are either suspended or cantilevered. In the lower part the cores are separated and
connected by the floor structures.
3. A frame structure is usually made of columns, beams and floor slabs arranged to resist both horizontal
and vertical loads. The frame is perhaps the most adaptable structural form with regard to material and
shape, due to the many ways of combining structural elements in order to give adequate support to the
given loading. In the examples of Figure 11, steel frames are combined with concrete walls and cores,
or with steel bracings and horizontal trusses.
4. A tube structure is normally characterised by closely spaced exterior structural elements, designed to
resist lateral loads as a whole, rather than as separate elements. Alternative schemes could include
braced tubes and framed tubes (see Figure 12). Besides the simple tube, tube-in-tube solutions can be
also used. These systems allow for more flexibility in the use of interior space, due to the lack of
interior columns.

81

Core System

82

1
 26/10/2021

Frame System

83

Bearing Wall System

84

2
 26/10/2021

Tube System

85

5. CALCULATION MODELS
5.1 Basic Assumptions
In the design of multi-storey buildings it is usual to refer to a calculation
model, which corresponds to an ideal structure having perfect constraints. In
contrast, the actual construction details show that the connections between
the various members which
comprise the structure are considerably different from the assumed
idealisations. It is therefore important to point out that any approach to
structural design must be based on simplified hypotheses and schemes
which make the correlation between the actual structure and model possible.
Only the model can be studied by the methods of structural analysis. The
results of the analysis will more closely predict the actual behaviour of the
structure, the nearer the model represents the structure itself.
A question to ask is whether the introduction of simplifying hypotheses leads
to a model whose behaviour is on the safe side or not. It is necessary to
check whether the results obtained from the model and, in particular, the
ultimate load carrying resistance at collapse, are safe or unsafe.

86

3
 26/10/2021

Basic Assumptions
To answer this question it may be helpful to apply the basic design static
theorem. In a structure subject to a set of external forces Fj, a uFj are the
values of the loads that, if applied, would produce the collapse of the
structure, a u being the actual collapse multiplier. If, for a generic load a Fj it is
possible to find a distribution of internal forces which balances the external
forces, and if the structure also complies everywhere with a given plasticity
criterion, then a £ a u.
This theorem is valid if the following hypotheses are satisfied:
1. Effects of local buckling are absent.
2. Second order effects have no influence.
3. Strain values at each point of the structure are lower than those
corresponding to material rupture.

87

Basic Assumptions
A calculation model will be able, therefore, to predict actual behaviour
more nearly as the compatibility conditions are more strictly satisfied.
Any solution is however on the safe side, even though compatibility is not
complied with, provided that:
• It represents the equilibrium between internal and external forces
• It observes the material strength.
• The structure has enough ductility, which is necessary to avoid
localised fractures, for load values below those for local or overall
structural collapse.
Clearly, once the calculation model has been defined, the stability of
members must be checked and, in the case of highly deformable
structures, the influence of second order effects on vertical loads must be
assessed. Some typical examples of calculation models of steel
structures are described below.

88

4
 26/10/2021

5.2 The Pin-Ended Structure

The model of a generic pin-ended structure (Figure 14) can be studied
with reference to various positions of the ideal hinges. They can be
located, for example, in any one of the three positions shown in Figure
14. Results will be on the safe side provided the dimensions of the
various structural elements comply with the assumed model. From the
three cases shown, the following criteria can be deduced for calculating
the moments and forces in the columns, beams and connections
(sections X-X and Y-Y).

89

Calculation models for pin ended Structure

90

5
 26/10/2021

Scheme 1
Columns A and B are simply compressed.
L is the span for calculating the beam moment.
The joint section X-X must resist not only a shear force
V = R1, but also a moment M = R1a.
The joint section Y-Y must resist not only a shear force V
= R1, but also a moment M = R1 (a + e).

91

Scheme 2

Column B is compressed (N = R1B + R2B) and subject to a moment M =

a (R1B -R2B) concentrated at the central axis.
Column A is compressed (N = R1) and subject to a moment M = R1 a
concentrated at the central axis.
L - 2a is the span for calculating the beam moments.
The joint section X-X must resist a shear force V = R1 only.
The joint section Y-Y must resist not only a shear force V = R1, but also
a moment M = R1e.

92

6
 26/10/2021

Scheme 3
Column B is compressed (N = R1B + R2B) and subject to a moment
M=(R1B -R2B) (a + e) concentrated at the central axis.
Column A is compressed (N = R1) and bent by a moment M = R1 (a +
e) concentrated at the central axis.
L - 2 (a + e) is the span for calculating the beam moments.
The joint section X - X must resist a shear force V = R1 and a moment
M = R1e.
The joint section Y - Y must resist a shear force V = R1 only.

93

The Pin-Ended Structure

Each of these three models is on the safe side and can therefore be assumed for
calculation. The choice between them is made considering the structural element or
the joint which is the weakest part of the structure. The model which minimises the
internal forces in that part is chosen, because it is the most safe.
In the first scheme the state of stress in the column is the lowest. It can, therefore,
be chosen when columns are oriented according to their weak axis (Figure 15a).
Bending effects in the columns are, in fact, eliminated in spite of slight moments in
the joints due to a relatively small eccentricity of the bolted connection.
The second scheme is often conservative if the columns are oriented according to
the strong axis (Figure 15b). In this case, in fact, eccentricity is greater than half the
column depth and it could require an increase in the resistance of the connection.
The eccentricity also entails a greater stress in the columns due to bending
moments. Their distribution can be evaluated by assuming hinges at the mid-point
between floors and by considering the columns fixed by the bracing structure
(Figure 16a). Thus, each vertical row can be considered by means of the isostatic
scheme shown in Figure 16b. The horizontal reaction Hi is given by rotational
equilibrium around the hinge number i:

94

7
 26/10/2021

Beam to Column Joints

95

Calculation models for column pin ended

structures

96

8
 26/10/2021

Hi =

The effects of forces Hi, for each floor and for each column, are resisted by vertical bracings
through the floor system. Their intensity is approximately
D R e/h, wherein D R is the difference between the reactions of two beams connected at the
column and e/h is the ratio between the hinge eccentricity and the floor height. In the types of
structure being considered, as the beam spans are comparable, D R depends mainly on any
unbalanced accidental loads. Furthermore, as e/h is essentially small, these effects are
generally negligible compared with those due to external loads. In contrast, bending moment
effects on the columns are not negligible. The corresponding increase in stress must be
considered in the calculations.

97

5.3 The Truss Bracing

Forces acting on bracing structures, such as the effects of

wind, earthquakes and geometric imperfections, do not
act in a particular direction. Therefore, the scheme of a
bracing system has to be designed and calculated for a
range of loading conditions.
Referring to the simple truss bracing shown in Figure 17a,
the behaviour of a single diagonal system is considered
(Figure 17b).

98

9
 26/10/2021

Behaviour of truss bracing

99

The structure is hyperstatic. Its solution to determine sway

displacements is determined by the compatibility condition (Figure 17c),
assuming member as rigid. This assumption imposes the equality D AB =
D CD between the elongation of the tension diagonal AB and the
shortening of the compression diagonal CD. If the N-D relationship
between the axial load N and variation D in the length (Figure 18a) is
equal in both tension and compression, then the axial force in both
diagonals has the same absolute value. The structure can be
considered as the superposition of two isostatic structures working in
parallel (Figure 18b) and its solution is straightforward.

100

10
 26/10/2021

Action in Diagonal Bars

101

The diagonals, however, differ substantially in their behaviour. The

compressed bar CD may not have a linear behaviour because, although it
remains elastic, it is subjected to buckling and the variation from linear
behaviour increases as its slenderness l increases (Figure 19a). For high
slenderness (Figure 19b), the geometric condition D AB = D CD requires an axial
load Nc in the strut which is substantially lower than the axial load Ni in the tie.
There are, therefore, two ways of dealing with bracing. It can be dimensioned
so that both diagonals can resist both tension and compression. For this
purpose a low slenderness is required (l £ 100), so that the difference in
behaviour between tension and compression

102

11
 26/10/2021

bars is negligible. This solution is illustrated in Figure 18b:

both diagonals cooperate in resisting shear forces.
Alternatively, the bracing can be dimensioned by
considering the tension diagonal alone. High slenderness is
required (l ³ 200) in order to ensure that, when the stress
reverses and the diagonal becomes a strut, it will remain
elastic even if it buckles. Under this condition the bar in
compression is redundant and the forces are wholly
resisted by the tension bar. Bracings designed in this way
are generally more economical, but deformation of the
structure is greater. Furthermore, the possibility of buckling
of compression diagonals makes this solution inadvisable
whenever the bracing is located in the plane of facades or
partition walls.

103

Differen Behaviour of a bar in tension and

in compression

104

12
 26/10/2021

Investigasi Analitis Pengaruh P-∆ pada

Rangka Baja Tanpa Bracing Bangunan
Middle Rise”

105

ABSTRAK
Dalam studi ini, pengaruh efek P-∆ terhadap perilaku
kerangka baja tanpa bracing pada bangunan middle-rise
dan validasi faktor B2, diteliti dengan menggunakan
pendekatan analitis sebagai acuan dasar disain bagi
engineer struktur tentang efek P-∆ . Metode sendi
plastis sempurna dan algoritma panjang busur
diaplikasikan pada orde kedua dua dimensi inelastik
analisis yang dapat mendeteksi perilaku frame pada saat
pasca beban maksimum.

106

106

13
 26/10/2021

Ada 4 tipe bangunan middle-rise kerangka baja tanpa

bracing yang dipilih sebagai subyek analisis. Parameter utama
analisis adalah bentuk dan skala dari frame yang kekakuan
balok dan kolom lantai 1, dan rasio beban aksial dari kolom
lantai 1. Seperti diungkapkan hasil analitis
penelitian yang dilakukan, efek P-Δ mempengaruhi perilaku
kerangka baja tanpa bracing pada bangunan middle rise,
beban aksial, dan kekakuan dari kolom lantai 1 merupakan
faktor utama yang mengatur efek P-Δ. Selain itu, faktor B2
tidak berlaku pada frame yang belum jelas alur konsepnya
dan tidak memperhitungkan efek P-Δ dari frame unbraced
ketika perilaku nonlinier-inelastik diinduksi. Jadi, pedoman
yang wajar diperlukan untuk penggunaan B2 faktor.

Kata kunci: efek P-Δ, B2 faktor, unbraced frame, 2-dimensi

orde kedua analisis inelastik
107

107

1. Pengantar
Sebagian besar bangunan komersial di pusat kota
Korea adalah bangunan kerangka baja middle-rise
karena keuntungan dari struktur baja, seperti proses
konstruksi cepat dan efektif penggunaan bahan (Kim,
2007).
Sistem portal momen (kaku) bisa menjadi salah satu
rekomendasi sebagai sistem struktur untuk
Kasus di atas (Gambar 1), karena ini struktural
sistem adalah salah satu sistem paling ulet dapat
diandalkan untuk resistensi gaya lateral ketika
ketentuan-ketentuan khusus diterapkan.
108

108

14
 26/10/2021

Frame Moment dikategorikan sebagai frame

unbraced karena menahan gaya lateral melalui
aksi batang yang dipasang menjadi kaku dengan
sambungan sendi. Dalam hal ini, perpindahan
lateral (Δ) dapat dipaksa dan hal itu
menyebabkan efek P-Δ. Hal ini mungkin sangat
mempengaruhi stabilitas dari frame unbraced
(Galambos, 1968, 1998; Chen, 1991). Oleh
karena itu, P-Δ efek harus dipertimbangkan
selama desain unbraced frame.

109

109

Gambar 1. Klasifikasi bangunan sistem struktur

oleh
Fazlur Khan (Moon, 2007).

110

110

15
 26/10/2021

Sejak awal 1970-an, penelitian telah dilakukan untuk

mengembangkan metode yang cocok untuk mengetahui
pengaruh P-Δ . Telah banyak dihasilkan studi tentang
pengaruh P-Δ, Namun, fokus pada faktor amplifikasi momen
(Yura, 1971; Cheong-Siat-Moy, 1972; LeMessurier,1972) atau
metode analisis orde kedua (Chen, 1991,1995; Chan, 2000).
Karena latar belakang semacam ini, sangat terbatas
informasi yang dapat digunakan untuk desain skematik
frame unbraced yang tersedia. Selain itu, sulit untuk
insinyur struktur untuk memahami keterbatasan semua
Metode analisis yang dapat mempertimbangkan efek P-Δ.

111

111

Oleh karena itu, pengaruh /efek P-Δ terhadap perilaku

kerangka baja tanpa bracing pada bangunan middle rise,
faktor utama yang mempengaruhi efek P-Δ, dan
keterbatasan Metode analisis yang digunakan untuk
mengetahui P-Δ efek harus diselidiki, sebagai acuan
dasar informasi dari efek P-Δ untuk insinyur struktural.
Untuk tujuan ini, studi eksperimental pada P-Δ efek
dilakukan oleh penulis (Kim, 2001, 2002,2009).
Meskipun skala frame dan jumlah spesimen yang
terbatas. Oleh karena itu, analitis pendekatan, metode
analisis orde kedua inelastis adalah digunakan untuk
mengatasi keterbatasan eksperimental pendekatan
dalam penelitian ini.

112

112

16
 26/10/2021

Metode faktor B2 dipilih dalam penelitian ini sebagai

metode yang diharapkan dapat digunakan untuk mengetahui
P-Δ efek dalam tahap desain karena disarankan di KBC 2009
(AIK, 2009) untuk mempertimbangkan efek P-Δ dari
unbraced rangka baja dengan orde pertama analisis elastis
dan lebih akrab dengan insinyur daripada metode lain.

113

113

2. Pendekatan Analitik
2.1. Metode analisis
Analisis orde kedua inelastis diperlukan untuk
mengetahui pengaruh P-Δ dan faktor B2, termasuk
untuk daerah inelastis. metode analisis banyak
disarankan untuk analisis urutan kedua inelastis dan
masing-masing dari mereka memiliki kemampuannya
sendiri.
Dalam studi ini, Metode sendi plastik sempurna yang
disarankan oleh W. F. Chen (1995) dan S. E. Kim
(1998), digunakan sebagai platform program analisis
karena memiliki akurasi yang memadai dan analisis
cepat.

114

114

17
 26/10/2021

Metode ini dapat mempertimbangkan,

menghasilkan beberapa tahapan bagian yaitu
dengan model sudut momen rotasi (Gambar
2(a)), pengurangan momen plastik penuh
disebabkan oleh beban aksial, pengurangan
tangen modulus disebabkan oleh tegangan sisa
dan beban aksial, dan orde kedua efek, seperti P-
δ dan efek P-Δ (Kim, 1998). Meskipun dari
perilaku bahan, seperti tekuk lateral atau tekuk
lokal, tidak dipertimbangkan dalam metode ini.

115

115

Sebagian besar diterapkan metode sendi plastik

sempurna, Namun metode Newton Raphson digunakan
untuk memecahkan persoalan algoritma. Dengan
demikian, perilaku pasca-beban maksimum tidak dapat
terdeteksi. Metode panjang busur (Crisfield,1983), yang
mengontrol beban dan perpindahan di waktu yang sama
dengan fungsi pembatas (Gambar 2 (b)), adalah
diterapkan untuk mempermudah pemecahan masalah
algoritma (Kim, 2002) dalam studi ini. Dengan demikian,
pengaruh P-Δ pada postmaximum perilaku pada saat
beban berhasil diselidiki. Ini ditunjukkan dalam diagram
konseptual model momen rotasi sudut dan metode
panjang busur ditunjukkan pada Gambar 2

116

116

18
 26/10/2021

Untuk memverifikasi program yang didasarkan pada Metode

sendi plastis sempurna dengan metode panjang busur,
analisis dilakukan dengan parameter yang sama seperti tes
yang dilakukan para penulis (Kim, 2001, 2002, 2009).
Spesimen adalah satu-tingkat, satu-span unbraced frame
(Lihat pada Gambar 3), dan tes dilakukan pada kondisi
beban statis. Hasil perbandingan ditunjukkan pada Gambar 3.
Gambar ini menunjukkan bahwa hasil analisis konsisten
dengan hasil pengujian dari tahap loading awal ke tahap
postmaximum loading. Oleh karena itu, dapat dikatakan
bahwa program analisis diterima.

117

117

Gambar 2. Konseptual diagram

program.
118

118

19
 26/10/2021

Gambar 3. Perbandingan hasil analisis dengan uji

hasil.

119

119

EXAMPLE II.C-2
BRACING CONNECTION

120

20
 26/10/2021

121

122

21
 26/10/2021

123

124

22
 26/10/2021

125

126

23
 26/10/2021

127

128

24
 26/10/2021

129

130

25
 26/10/2021

131

132

26
 26/10/2021

133

134

27
 26/10/2021

135

136

28
 26/10/2021

137

138

29
 26/10/2021

139

140

30
 26/10/2021

141

31