You are on page 1of 1
Unbraced Composite Frames: Application of the Wind Moment Method 3 HAH MESAAAAAARALE LEA) SS o Figure 1 Superposition of gravity and lateral load analyses For the first of these the approach previously utilised by Ye, Nethercot and Li, (1996), that is based ‘on moment curvature relationships developed by Li, Nethercot and Choo, (1993), was employed. Since composite endplates were assumed for the beam to column connections, the work of Ahmed and Nethercot,(1997), in predicting moment-rotation response under hogging moment was directly employed Data on the performance of composite beam to column connections under sagging i.e. opening, moments was, however, almost non-existent. Previous experience with the Wind Moment Method had, however, suggested that reversal in the sign of the rotation at any connection might be a rather unusual event. An approximate model for composite connection behaviour under sagging moments ‘was therefore devised by examining test data for such connections when subject to cyclic loading. All previous studies of the WMM have assumed rigid i.e. fully fixed column bases. Enquiries among practitioners had, however, already revealed that such an option was not attractive. In addition, there was a widely held belief that all practical forms of “pin” column bases were capable of supplying quite significant amounts of rotational restraint. Accordingly, all relevant information on column base effects — particularly previous experimental studies ~ was carefully reviewed in an attempt to identify suitable minimum restraint levels likely to be supplied by notionally pinned bases, Hensman and Nethercot, (2000a). The findings were then incorporated in the full parametric study. This point is regarded as particularly important as attempts to justify the WMM approach using truly pinned column bases, Hensman,(1998), had shown that it was almost impossible to satisfy realistic drift limitations due to the greatly enhanced overall frame flexibility resulting from the loss of column base restraint (as compared with the usual WMM assumption of fixed bases). It is believed that the exercise should be repeated — since bare steel columns were assumed throughout, it would merely be a case of conducting appropriate analyses on bare steel frames ~ as a way of similarly relaxing an unattractive restriction in the application of the WMM to bare steel construction.