7th International Conference on Steel & Aluminium Structures 13 15 July 2011 Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia

NONLINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSES OF A DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR DTMFs

A. Longo1, R. Montuori2 and V. Piluso3
2

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno Italy; e-mail alongo@unisa.it Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno Italy; e-mail r.montuori@unisa.it 3 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno Italy; e-mail v.piluso@unisa.it

ABSTRACT

In this paper a new design methodology for Dissipative Truss Moment Frames (DTMFs) aimed at failure mode control is briefly presented. The application of the design procedure is herein reported with reference to an eight storey DTMF with special dissipative devices located at the ends of truss girders at the bottom chord level. The accuracy of the proposed design procedure, whose validation has been already carried out in previous works by means of push-over analyses, is herein investigated by means of non linear dynamic analyses carried out by OpenSees computer program to confirm the goal of the design procedure (i.e the involvement of all the dissipative devices in the seismic energy dissipation avoiding the yielding of the main structure). 1. INTRODUCTION In case of bays having quite long span, truss moment frames are often used in the design of steel buildings due to their ability to withstand gravity loads and also lateral forces due to wind or earthquakes. This structural typology has been developed in last years, because of its economy and for the simple connection details required by the truss girders. In addition, due to the possibility to cover long spans, the structural system provides architectural benefits which allow its use in a large variety of mid-rise structures. As a consequence, researchers have been encouraged to investigate on the seismic performance of this structural typology. The use of special dissipative devices, such as friction or hysteretic devices, at the bottom chord level of the truss girder is suggested by the design example of World Trade Center. In fact, in the case of World Trade Center, special visco-elastic devices were placed at the ends of each truss girder at the bottom chord level, aiming to reduce the structural lateral vibrations due to wind actions. In the same way, friction or hysteretic devices can be located at the ends of truss girders of TMFs so that they can constitute the dissipative zones of the structure aiming to avoid the yielding of the whole truss girders. This new structural typology of TMF, is referred to as Dissipative Truss Moment Frames. A design procedure for failure mode control of DTMFs has been developed and presented in a previous work by the same authors [1, 2]. The proposed design methodology is the extension to DTMFs of a rigorous methodology already developed for failure mode control of Moment Resisting Frames [3]. The aim of the proposed

design methodology is the development of a global collapse mechanism assuring the participation of all the dissipative devices to the dissipation of the earthquake input energy. While all the columns remains in the elastic range with the only exception of base sections of first storey columns where plastic hinges are needed for the complete development of a kinematic mechanism. In fact, even though dissipative devices are located at the ends of each truss girder, common hierarchy criteria do not assure that all of them are involved in the energy dissipation process, due to the development of partial mechanisms which engage the devices of only a limited number of storeys. The combination of a rigorous design methodology, based on the kinematic theorem of plastic collapse with the use of dissipative devices allows to assure that dissipation of seismic input energy occurs only in friction or hysteretic devices which can be properly designed and easily substituted, after the occurrence of destructive earthquakes, without the involvement of the main structure. In other words, the best seismic performance of DTMFs is reached when a global collapse mechanism is achieved (Fig. 1), whose development is the primary goal of plastic design of seismicresistant structures. The proposed design method has been presented in previous work [1,2] where a preliminary validation of the design procedure has been carried out, with reference to some designed structures, by means of non linear static analyses. Aiming to the definitive validation of the proposed design procedure, non linear dynamic analyses for increasing levels of the seismic intensity measure (IDA analyses) have been carried out by means of OpenSees computer program with reference to some designed DTMFs. In this paper, for sake of synthesis only the results of an eight storey Dissipative Truss Moment Frames with yield threshold equal to 655KN will be presented.

2. DESIGN METHODOLOGY The proposed design procedure is based on the kinematic theorem of plastic collapse and on second order plastic analysis. It starts from the observation that the collapse mechanisms for the considered structural typology subjected to horizontal forces can be considered as belonging to three main typologies (Fig. 1), where the collapse mechanism of global type is a particular case of type-2 mechanism. The control of the failure mode can be performed by means of the analysis of 3ns mechanisms (being ns the number of storeys). The method starts from the knowledge of truss girder sections and of the resistance of the dissipative devices. The truss girders are designed to resist vertical loads, while the threshold of the dissipative devices is chosen to be less than the axial resistance of the chords assuring the prevention of yielding in the structural elements of truss girders. The unknowns of the design problem are the column sections whose plastic modulus has to be defined so that the kinematically admissible multiplier of horizontal forces corresponding to the global mechanism has to be less than those corresponding to the other 3ns-1 kinematically admissible mechanisms. According to the upper bound theorem, the above stated multiplier is the true collapse multiplier, so that the global failure mode is the mechanism actually developed. In particular, it is imposed that the mechanism equilibrium curve (-) corresponding to the global mechanism has to lie below the equilibrium curves corresponding to all the other undesired mechanisms within a displacement range compatible with the local ductility supply of dissipative elements. This approach allows to

prevent column yielding taking into account also second order effects [3].

Fns Fk hns F2 F1
GLOBAL MECHANISM MECHANISM TYPE 1 MECHANISM TYPE 2 MECHANISM TYPE 3

im

him h2 h1
device yielded plastic hinge

Figure 1: Type of mechanisms for DTMFs.

3. DESIGN EXAMPLES In order to evaluate the accuracy of the proposed design methodology, an adequate number of DTMFs having different numbers of storeys (410) have been designed. In particular, for sake of shortness, only the results of an eight-storey DTMF will be discussed in this paper. The building plan configuration is symmetrical with reference to the two orthogonal directions (Fig 1). As a consequence, neglecting the accidental torsion due to the random variability of location of live loads, the distribution of the seismic horizontal forces among the vertical seismic resistant schemes is immediately obtained. S275 steel grade has been adopted. For each floor the dead load (Gk) is equal to 3 kN/m2 and the live load (Qk) is equal to 2 kN/m2. The seismic horizontal forces have been determined according to Eurocode 8 [4], assuming a peak ground acceleration equal to 0.35g, a seismic response amplification factor equal to 2.5, soil type A and behaviour factor q equal to 6.50, i.e. the q factor of MRFs [4]. In Table 1 the member sections of truss girders and the column sections resulting from the application of the proposed design procedure are given. Regarding the elements of the truss girder, the spacing between UPN profiles (i.e. the thickness of the gusset plate) is equal to 15 mm. In the same table, the buckling resistance Nb.Rd of chords and diagonals are also pointed out. For sake of synthesis only the case of an eight storey frame with yield threshold of dissipative devices equal to 655 kN (corresponding to 50% of the buckling axial resistance Nb.Rd of the chords of the truss girders) is herein presented although the analyses have been
Storey Chords Nb.Rd=1330kN Diagonals Nb.Rd=78.8kN External columns Internal columns

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2UNP 240 2UNP 240 2UNP 240 2UNP 240 2UNP 240 2UNP 240 2UNP 240 2UNP 240

2UNP 140 2UNP 140 2UNP 140 2UNP 140 2UNP 140 2UNP 140 2UNP 140 2UNP 140

SHS 70x2.20 SHS 64x2.0 SHS 58x2.0 SHS 58x2.0 SHS 58x2.0 SHS 56x1.9 SHS 50x1.8 SHS 40x1.4

SHS 78x2.6 SHS 72x2.4 SHS 66x2.2 SHS 66x2.2 SHS 66x2.2 SHS 64x2.0 SHS 56x2.0 SHS 46x1.6

Table 1: Results for the designed 8th storey DTMF with yield threshold of dissipative devices equal to 655kN.

D43

D44 D45

D46 D47

D48

1200

1200

1200

D37

D38 D39

D40 D41

D42

D31

D32 D33

D34 D35

D36

D25

D26 D27

D28 D29

D30

D19

D20 D21

D22 D23

D24

D13

D14 D15

D16 D17

D18

D7

D8 D9

D10 D11

D12

D1

D2 D3

D4 D5

D6

friction device yielded Figure 1: Analyzed structure and numbering of dissipative devices.

carried out with reference to DTMF with different number of storeys and with different value of yield threshold of dissipative devices. In order to validate the proposed design procedure, the seismic response of the designed structure has been investigated by means of non linear dynamic analyses carried out using OpenSees computer program [5] which allows to model the structural elements using non linear fibres elements. Only the dissipative devices are modelled using the zero length elements having the possibility to reproduce the hysteretic behaviour of the devices by means of an appropriate calibration of yield threshold. Out-of-plane stability checks of compressed members have been carried out for each step of the analysis according to the Eurocode 3 [6]. Four accelerograms have been considered to perform the non linear dynamic analyses: Gazli URSS 1976 (PGA=0.609a/g; Sa(T1)=0.4391a/g; N-S component), Helena MONTANA 1935 (PGA=0.153a/g; Sa(T1)=0.1467 a/g; E-W component), Friuli (San Rocco) ITALY 1976 (PGA=0.035a/g; Sa(T1)=0.0889a/g; N-S component) and Tokyo 1956 (PGA= 0.075 a/g; Sa(T1)=0.03643a/g; N-S component). Aiming to perform an incremental dynamic non linear analysis (IDA) all the records have been properly scaled to provide increasing values of the spectral acceleration Sa(T1) corresponding to the fundamental period of vibration of the structure equal to T1=1.34 sec. In particular, the analyses have been repeated increasing the Sa(T1)/g value until the occurrence of structural collapse corresponding to column, chord or diagonal buckling, or the complete development of a collapse mechanism or the attainment of the limit value of the peak interstorey drift ratio (PIDR) assumed equal to 0.04 rad (maximum plastic interstorey drift angle assumed for the evaluation of the design displacement used in the design algorithm and associated to the plastic rotation of columns [1, 2]). 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The main goal of the analyses performed is to gain information on the elements involved in

100

450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450

1200

1200

1200

Figure 2: Maximum Interstorey Drift values versus spectral acceleration.

energy dissipation. In particular, before the development of the collapse mechanisms, all the dissipative devices are involved in the seismic energy dissipation whereas all the columns and all the truss girders are in elastic range.
In Figure 2 the maximum interstorey drift ratio (i.e the maximum PIDR among the different storeys) MIDR versus spectral acceleration is reported. For each accelerograms, the MIDR reached the limit value equal to 0.04 rad before the complete development of a collapse mechanism. Finally, for each dissipative device, in Table 2 the seismic energy dissipated and Dissipated Devices Energy [kN cm] D1-D2-D3-D4-D5-D6-D43-D46-D47-D48D3-D7-D10-D11-D12-D13-D16-D17-D18-D19-D22 -D23-D24-D25-D28-D29-D30-D31-D34-D35-D36D37-D40-D41-D42 D44-D45 D8 D9 D14 D15 D20-D33-D38 D21-D32-D39 D26-D27
Helena accelerograms for Sa(T1)=1.4 g.

Equivalent cumulated plastic excursion [cm] 1-5 5-10

655-3275 3275-6550

6550-9825 9825-16375 16375-22925 22925-29475 29475-36025 36025-42575 42575-49125 49125-55675

10-15 15-25 25-35 35-45 45-55 55-65 65-75 75-85

Table 2: Seismic energy dissipated and equivalent cumulated plastic excursion of special devices corresponding to

the equivalent cumulated plastic excursion (defined as the ratio between the total energy dissipated by the device and its yield threshold) are reported with reference to Helena accelerogram scaled at Sa(T1)=1.4 g corresponding to a PGA equal to 1.46 g leading to the limit value of the drift angle. It is important to underline that all the devices are involved in the seismic energy dissipation, because the equivalent cumulated plastic excursion of the devices is greater than zero whereas all the structural elements are in the elastic range. This result represents an excellent seismic performance because when the limit value (0.04 rad) of the interstorey drift is achieved the PGA is very large (1.46 g) and the collapse mechanism is not yet developed. Moreover, dissipative devices can be easily substituted if needed. These performances are confirmed for each accelerograms used in the analyses. Therefore, it can be concluded that the design goal has been actually obtained. 5. CONCLUSIONS

A design methodology aimed at the failure mode control presented in detail in [1,2] has been applied for designed an adequate number of DTMFs having different numbers of storeys and different threshold resistance of dissipative devices. Non linear dynamic analyses have been carried out by means of OpenSees computer program aiming to the validation of the proposed design methodology. For sake of shortness only the results dealing with the seismic response of an eight storey DTMF have been discussed in this paper. The preliminary results of the incremental dynamic analyses performed have pointed out the accuracy of the design methodology, because all the dissipative devices (friction or hysteretic devices), are involved in the seismic energy dissipation without the involvement of the main structure.
4. REFERENCES

[1] Longo A., Montuori R. & Piluso V. 2009 Plastic Design of Dissipative Truss Moment Frames. 6th International Conference on Behavior of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas STESSA2009 - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - USA August 16-20, 2009. [2] Longo A., Montuori R. & Piluso V. 2009. Failure Mode Control Of Dissipative Truss Moment Frames. ICASS '09 - Sixth International Conference on Advances in Steel Structures - Hong Kong, 16 - 18 December 2009. [3] Mazzolani F. M., Piluso V.1997, Plastic Design of Seismic Resistant Steel Frames. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics vol. 26, 167-191. [4] CEN 2005. PrEN 1998-1. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance. Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. [5] OpenSEES Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (1999): Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of Berkeley, California.

[6] CEN 1993. PrEN 1993-1. Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures. Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings.