Seismic Column Demands in Ductile Braced Frames Paul W. Richards, P.E., MASCE" ‘Abstract: In ductile braced frames, column seismic demands depend on the strength of ductile elements and yielding pattems that oceut during earthquake loading. Column demands were investigated in buckling restrained braced frames (BRBFS), special concentrically braced frames (SCBFS), and eccentrcally braced frames (EBFs) with diferent heights (3, 9, and 18 story) and sirength levels using nonlinear time history analysis, For columns at the base of 9- and 18-story BRBFs and EBF, axial demands observe from the analyses were 55-70% of demands commonly used in design, indicating potential cost savings on columns, anchor rods, base plates, and foundations in tll buildings; however, in low-rise SCBFs with braces inthe 2story X-configoration, column axial demands were upto 100% greater than those commonly used in design because of force redistribution that occurs after brace buckling. Column rotations in all frames were less than 0.03 rad, These rotation demands are lower than rotation capacities that have been demonstrated in other work, DOL: 10.10611(ASCE}O733-9445(2009)135:1(33) CE Database subject headings: Sicel frames; Steel columns; Seismic design; Seismic analysis; Nonlinear analysis; Bracing: Foundations. Introduction In ductile braced frames, column demands significantly impact ‘building costs but are dificult to determine precisely. For buck= ling restrained braced frames (BRBEY) special concentrically braced frames (SCBF), and evventrcally braced frames (EBFs), axial and flexural column demands depend on he extent and pat tems of yielding that occur during an earthquake. Indesign mits ‘on column axial demands are often computed by assuming all ductile elements reach their maximum strength simultaneously (AISC 2005). When this approach is used in the design of tall buildings it may result in heavy columns with difieult connec tions © the Foundation system (Adams 2005, e.). Overestimat ing column demands during design increases the cost of the columns, base plates, anchor rods, and foundation system. Limited studies suggest it is overconservative to compu axial column demands in tall frames by assuming all ductile elements reach their maximum strength simultaneously. In time history analyses of four EBFs over 9 stories tal, simultaneous yielding of links over the entire height never occured and column demands a the base were as low a8 60% of the theoretical maximum force that could be delivered (Koboevie and Redwood 1997; Richards 2004). Neither of these studies considered the effects of continu- ‘us gravity columns on frame response. Continuous gravity col- ‘ums in a building promote uniform story deformations along the ‘height (MacRae et al. 2004: Sabeli et al, 2003). which would tend to increase simultaneous yielding and column axial demancs. Flexural column demands also impact frame performance, but ae difficult to bound, Flexural column demands are caused by honuniform story drifts (Koboevie and Redwood 1997; Sabeli "Assistant Professor, Dept of Civil and Environmental Engnesing, ‘Brigham Young Univ, Provo, UT 84602. Ema prichards@etbyu.eds Noe, Associate Fiiiar A. M. Kanvinde. Discussion ope until June 1, 2008, Separate diseusslons must be submited for individual papers. ‘The manuserit for his paper was submited fr review and possible publication on Jly 27,2007 approved on May 29,2008, This paper is ar ofthe Journal of Stetural Enginerng, Vol 135, No.1 Jantary 1, 2009, ASCE, ISSN 0733.94482000/1-33-41825.00 et al, 2003) and moment frame action at large deformations (Mahin etal. 2004). Empirical methods to estimate flexural de- ‘mands have been proposed for SCBFs (MacRae etal. 2004), but hhave not been developed for BRBFs or EBFS. “This paper presents data on axial and flexural column demands | ‘obtained om time history analyses of BRBFs, SCBFs, and EBPs ‘of different heights, designed according to curent U'S. provisions (AISC 2005; ICC 2006). Column demands observed from the analyses are compared with those typically used in design. Rec- ‘ommendations are given for safe and economical design of cal- tummns in ductile braced frames Design of Frames ‘Thiny-six buildings were designed representing three systems (BRBFs, SCBFS, and EBFs), three heights (3, 9, nd 18 stor), and four strength levels (discussed later). Building plan dimen- sions and flaor masses matched those used in moment frame stud- jes (Gupta and Krawinkler 1999). Seismic weights forthe 3, 9- and 18-story buildings were 127, 390, and 432 MN (7.160, 21,880, and 24,160 kis). Braced bays were located around the perimeter of the buildings. SCBFs had braces in the 2-story X-configuration (Fig. 1) 10 reflect practice that avoids V-bracing because of unbalanced vertical loads that must be resisted by the beams alter brace buckling (AISC 2005). The sume brace con- figuration was used for BRBFs (Fig. 1) whereas the EBF build- ings, identical in plan, had chevron bracing. The 18-story buildings were 72.8 ms (239 fi) cal, jst below the 73.2.m (240 1) ‘maximum height allowed for braced frames (Design Category D, ICC 2006). Braced frames were designed according to the 2006 Interna ‘ional Building Code (ICC 2006) equivalent lateral force proce- dure and Seismic Provisions (AISC 2008). A Los Angeles ste ‘was used for design with Spg=I.11 and Sp)=0.61, where Sps and Soi=ste design specteal acelerations a 0.2 and 1.0 sin terms of, igavily, Base shear coefficients, C, for different combinations of building height and system are indicated in Table 1 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2000/93 own 2 ep 3011848 4208, Redon ijn io ASCE eae copy se ite erentee z & af § 7 smonisenaid| @ ©) © Fig. 1. Plan and clevation views of SCBF and BRBF bilings:() story (0) toy and) 1-tory ‘The importance factor, 1, in the base shear equations (see foot notes of Table 1) introduces the possibility of different design ‘base shears for buildings of similar height and system at the same site. Four strength levels (desiga base shears) were considered for cach building height (C,=0.15, 020, 0.25, 0.30 for 3-siory build ings; C,=0.06, 0.09, 0.12, 0.15 for 9-story buildings; and C, 03, 0.05, 0.07. 0.09 for 18-story buildings). Buildings with C, values lower than those indicated in Table 1 were included inthe study to investigate the effects of low lateral strength on column demands. Lateral frames were designed for each of the buildings. Member sizes for all frames can be found in Prinz (2007). Modeling and Analysis Techniques Individual frames were modeled as two-dimensional systems using the nonlinear dynamic analysis program RUAUMOKO {Carr 2004), Standard beam elements with bilinear fexura-axia Tabblo 1. Base Shear Cetin, Toe Various Systems Nombee Swen of sores BREF scar Ene 3 0161028" 019028) 013 020) 9 0.08013) 010.15) 0.06 (0.08) 18 0.05 (008) 005 (0.09) 0.04 (0.06) {CSTR for T and 18-ory buildings *R=6, T=0.44, 103, and 1.70 for 39>, and 1B-storybuldings. T=065, 14, and 255s for 3 9-, and 18-sory buildings. "Vales in paretheses for /=1.5 ll thers are ‘Table 2. Modeling Vielding Members hinges at each end were used to represent beams and columns. ‘Table 2 summarizes oer elements that were used to represent the ‘ductile elements inthe braced frames. Columns tthe base ofthe frames were considered fixed. Beam-column connections were ‘considered rigid when a gusset plote was present, and pinned when not, ‘A single continuous column in each model represented all the ravity columns associated with the frame (one fourlh of the building). This representative column had stifness and strength a each story corresponding tothe sum of the gravity columns, as suming weak axis bending. Gravity loads corresponding. 10 1.2D+0.5L (ICC 2006) were applied to this column during the analyses, where D and L=detd and live load effets, respectively. ‘This column was pinned atthe base and constrained to match the frame displacements at each Moor level Ductile Element Capacities Expected material sengihs were specified for the ductile ele» ‘ments in the models, whereas nominal strengths were used for ‘other members. Buckling restuined brace elements had ultimate compressive strengths of 1.95F,A, (Ry=I.1, B=1.22, w= 1.45) based experimental data for braces (Merrit etal, 2003; Reaveley etal 2004), where F,=nominal material yield sess; A,=ares of the brace core; R,=ratio between expected and nominal material strength; B=compression strength factor, and w=stain hardening facior. SCBF brace elements had material strength corresponding (oR,F, with Ry=1.4 for HSS braces and 1.1 for WF braces (AISC 2003).” EBF shear link elements had maximum strengths of 1.55, (Ry= 1.1, w= 141) based on experimental data for A992 shear links (Okszak etal, 2005), where V,=nominal shear capac- ity ofthe link ‘To facilitate later discussion, brace and link capacities from the frame models re summarized in Fig. 2. Results are shown forthe strongest and weakest frames foreach combination of system and height; results for the other frames are similarso or bounded-by those shown. For each story of each frame the ulimate brace or link eapacity (taken as the maximum force that could be devel- ‘oped in each brace or link element in the model is divided by the clastic demand (demand in the brace or link under the equivalent lateral force) to give a normalized capacity. Normalized capacities in Fig. 2 indicate the effects of member sizing in combination with the strain hardening and material oversrength mentioned eatliet. For BRBF braces, normalized capacities are around 2.3, but a value of 4.7 occurs atthe top of one 18 story BRBF because the minimum manufactured brace core area, 6.45 em? (1 in), significantly exceeds the required area. SCBF braces in upper stories have high normalized capacities because slenderness or ‘width-thickness requirements govern design rather than strength in those locations (middle column in Fig. 2). For EBE links (Fig, 2, right column), normalized capacities are around 1.6 except for larger values atthe tp of the 18-story fames. Member Blemen) ‘TheoryValdaion perimental dia used for clbraton [BRDF braces ‘Truss clement with mullinear Sabet al, (2003); Coy (2007) ‘Mert ea. (2003); inematc-ype hardening Reaveley eal (2004) SCBE braces Buckling bree element Remennikov snd Walpole (1997), (1998) Leowardi (1994) BF links ‘Combination of beam and Ramadan and Ghobatah (199 Okazaki tal. (2005) spring elements Richards and Uang (2006) "ineremenial pial thory Brace tod '34/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING @ ASCE / JANUARY 2008, ono 2 Sep 08 t ALAEATA2O Redon ent ASCE Han oecopyah ee pbs sea cnacare ei Ss [oaown : : Bs }O=0.15 : 17 c bi al 0.09) c,=0.03 a . 4 ie ' ‘Baste Demand ‘lost Demand.” nates eel Modal and pushover analyses were performed for model charac- terization. The pushover analyses used the lateral force distibu- tion prescribed by the equivalent lateral force procedure (ICC 2006). Dynamic analyses were performed using suites of ten ‘eartiquake records, primarily from California events (Tables 3 and 4). Eanhguake records were scaled so that the mean spectral fcceleration of the suite for a range of building. periods was sreater than the design specta over the same range. Compared to Table 3. Earthquake Recoris Used far 3- and 9-Story Buildings Analyses See Record PGA) 1998 Nontridge (Canoga Park, NORTHRICNPI96* 042206 90013 Beverly Hill NORTHRMUL279——«OS2_—1.07. 90018 Holywood, NORTHR/WILIBO 02s 18s 90006 Sun Valley, NORTHRRO3IB0 ome 127 1989 Loma Prieta 1656 Holster Arty, LOMAPHDA2SS 0282.20 Hollister City Hall, LOMAPIEICH80 om 138 Gilroy No.3, LOMAPIGO3090, 037260 Gilroy No. 4, LOMAPIGO#090 oa 283 1987 Superstition Hills Parachute Test Site, SUPERSTB-PTS225 0461.02, Parachute Tet Ste, SUPERSTIB-PTSSIS___038__ 2.02, "ea ground aceleration Snesignation in Pace Farthguake Fnginecring Rescarch (PEER) atbace been shown to result in reduced scater of response data (Kurama and Farrow 2003). The mean spectra of the scaled records are shown in Fig. 3 with the design spectra. Different suites were used forthe analysis ofthe 3-, 9- and 18-story frames (Tables 3 and 4) so that scaling factors greater than three were not required ‘Analyses of the 9- and I8-story frames were repeated with other Table 4, Eaniquake Records Used for 18Story Buildings Analyses Record PGA'(g)_ factor 1999 Dunc, Tukey DDuzce, DUSCEIDZC270" 0s: 086 1999 Ch-Chi, Taiwan “TCU0S3, CHICHYTCUOS3.N 013090 CHY ION, CHICHICHYIOLN ou 059 1099 Kocaeli Turkey Yarimna, KOCAILUYPTO6O 02 08s ‘Yaa, KOCAILUYPTS30, 035097 1994 Norridge 90056 Newall, NORTHR/WPIO46 04s 128 1992 Landers 724 Lucerme, LANDERS/LCN27S om on 1979 Imperial Valley 955 El Centro Amay #4, IMPVALLH-EOI230 036087 952 El Centro Arey #5, IMPVALLH-EOS230 038082 942 El Centro Array 46, IMPVALLIH-ED6230 Qa 0.70, "ak ground aoeeraton. Desianaion in Paci Rarhquake Fginccring Research (PEER) databace, JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2009 /35 ony se ppunose cron= bint acong = fee esos tae SS csi ere onge of poods for Sm ey oucroe ‘Spectral Acceleration () ‘Spectral Acceleration (a) Period (200) ©) Fig. 3. Response spectra of euthquakes sale fo: (a) 3- and 9story buildings: (6) 1-story buildings suites with more high-frequency energy (not shoven; this rested in somewhat greater response in upper stores but did not change conclusions of the study. Rayleigh damping was used in the dynamic analyses with con- sideration of ils potential problems. Ricles and Popov (1994) and Hall (2006) have demonstrated that Rayleigh damping may result in uncealistcally high damping forces during ime history analy- ‘ses for some eases. Ta investigate the sensitivity of final esults 10 ‘damping assumptions, analyses of the BRBFS and EBFs were performed iice, frst with $% Rayleigh damping specified at the fundamental period and at & period of 0.2 s, and again with 05% damping specified atthe same periods. ‘Mode! Characterization Results from the modal and pushover analyses provide a reason- able level of confidence in the models and designs. The natural period of each frame is shown in Table 5. EBFs and BRBFs have Similar periods in all cases as recognized by design period a ‘proximations (FEMA 2003). SCBFs have lower periods forthe 3- and 9-story frames due to greater brace area (tines). Fig. 4 shows data from the pushover analyses. with the base shear for cach frame normalized by the design base shear. Results are shown forthe strongest and weakest frames foreach combination fof system and height; results fr the other Frames are simila-to or ‘bounded-by those shown. The roof drift under the equivalent lt- cera force is the drift when the normalized shear is equal to one (Fig. 4). Pushover curves for the SCBFs appear bilinear because as a compression brace buckles and loses strength its load is Table 5, Natural Periods (second) of Frames a Swengih (©) BREE SCH EGF Soy C0. 070 030 on x0.20 ase 049 06 ci=0.25 036 046 oss ost as ost 213 Let 200 16 a3 at 1s 130 135 Lat 116 Lat s70 536 56s 4 aa 495 378 384 39 338 344 355 carried by the tension brace in the bay, resulting in no loss of system silliness of stength until after the tension brace yields (n0| hardening was specified for SCBF brace tension yielding). With the exception of three SCBFSs that had braces sizes driven by slenderness requirements, all frames had normalized base shears between 1.5 and 2 at 2 roof drift of 0.02 rad, This compares reasonably with the system overstength of 2 assumed for EBFs, 'SCBFs, and BRBFS in design (ICC 2006). EBFs and BRBFs have similar shears at 0.02 rad roof drift, even though BRBFSs have greater normalized ductile element capacities (Fig. 2). because [BREF braces reach thie full strength at much larger deforma- tions. Dynamic Analysis Results and Discussion Results for column axial demands will be discussed fist. For each ‘column, the maximum axial load under each of the ten earth fakes was identified and an average value, Py, computed. An average value ofthe demand was used as more than seven records ‘were considered in the analyses (ICC 2006). The demand P, was normalized by the axial demand under the equivalent lateral force, P,. Normalized column demands, P,/P,, are shown in Fig. 5, Results are shown for the strongest and weakest frames for teach combination of system and height, results for the other frames are similar-to or bounded-by those shown, The normalized ccoluma demands ean be compared directly withthe amplification Factor, 25, commonly used in design (ICC 2006). Damping ‘The diferent damping cases considered produced similar final resulis for BRBFs, but somewhat diferent results for EBFs. For [BRBFS, 5% damping resulted in slightly lower column axial de- ‘mands than 0.5% damping (45 maximum difference), due to de creased frame respon. This suggests tha, in general, assumed values for viscous damping have relatively minor impact on the column demands, EBFs are an exception. For the EBFs, 5% ‘damping generally resulted in increased column axial demands as ‘compared to 0:5% damping (around 10% greater for most col- tums, but as high as 28%) because relatively high Tink rotation '36/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE J JANUARY 2000 mio 2 Sep 28090 2.174208 Raison ebro ABE ena opi ae pub an eereRars scors core Beton Beloy G08 Baton 20.15 on035 E030 /; 6030 Bion Baier, TP saerr ~ naan aaa oat abt : syen 3 lecose)) cot Zenooe : ‘ Fig. 5. Normalized column demands JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2009/87 wenn 2 6p 20080 128461708, Radon ust a ASCE es oooh ta appa aca coralvelocities generate lunge damping forces, increasing brace and column demands unrealistically (Riles and Popov 1994). For the BFS, the esults from the ease with 0.5% damping are consid ered more realistic, In Fig. 5 and the following discussion, the BRBFs and SCBFs with 5% viscous damping will be considered along with the 0.5% damped EBFS. BRBFs ‘The normalized column demand atthe top ofthe 3- and 9.story BRBFS is shown as 1.0 in Fig. 5 (left sie). These frames had ‘chevron bracing in the top story (Fig. 1) and under the equivalent lateral foree the top story columns in these frames were zero: force members. As the column axial demands atthe top siory Were negligible during the dynamic analyses the normalized de- rand is considered 1.0. The 2-story X-bracing in other stores resulted in the same column demands for 2-story increments ‘These observations also apply to the SCBFS. ‘Normalized column demands inthe 3story BRBEs correspond with expected behavior. For the Frame with C,=0.15, normalized ‘demand a the fist story was about 1.7 (Fig 5, op lef), whichis ‘what would be expected if al stories reached an interstory drift of 0.02 rad simultaneously (Fig. 4). The BRBF designed with C, 30 had lower normalized column demands because the ston ter frame experienced less inelastic deformation and less stain hardening in the braces. ‘The 9- and 18-story BRBFs illustrate behaviors also seen in the 9- and 18.story SCBFS and EBFs. Higher normalized column demands at the top of the 9- and 18-story frames result from excess brace capacity (compare Figs. 2 and 5); this will be dis- cussed in greater detail later. Even though the system overstength is less than two for all BRBFs (see pushover analysis results in Fig. 4), local brace oversrength can be much higher resulting in ‘normalized column demands greater that 2? in upper stories "Normalized column demands at the bate of the 9- and 18-story BRBFs are less than the normalized ulmate brace capacities (again comparing Figs. 2 and 5), indicating that all of the braces do not yield and reach their ultimate strength simultaneously. [Normalized column demands at the base of the 9-story BRBFS were between 1.1 and 1.2, Normalized column demands atthe base of the I8-story BRBFs were between 1.2 and 1.4 ‘The previous discussion has focused on average demands from the suite of records since these are used for design (ICC 2006); however, the distibution of the data is of some interest, Normal ined mean-plus-one demands at the base of the 9-story BRBFs were between 1.3 and I.8, Normalized mean-plus-one demands at the base ofthe 18-story BRBFs were between 1.3 and 1.5. scBFs (On initial inspection, normalized column demands shown in Fig. 5 for SCBFs appear unrealistically high. The 3story SCBF with C,=0.15 had normalized column demand of 4.5 for the fest and second stories (Fig. 5, top of middle columa). Braces in this frame were HSS7%7% 1/2 tubes at all stories (minimum shape to satisfy slendemess requirements). As the brace capacities were the same al each story, buckling occurred atthe fist story where brace demands were greatest. The brace compression capacity was 1.9 times the frststory elastic brace demand (Fig, 2). It right then be expected that maximum compression load in the coluran would be 1.9 times the elastic column demand, corre- 2 fron 8 Conpretson aor. | a . sway owt . 50m oe Latrionis —MamberAs Forces ® sor caw fi pos ox. fi poem Latliands enter Foee » Fig. 6. Forces in SCBF with 2story X-beacng: (a) before bace removal; (b) after brace remove soning tothe time whom the fat-stry brace echo apue- i: However the normalized column demand observed from the falyss is more than double this vale (Fi. 3) Force redistribution after buckling explains the large normal ized column demands in the teestory SCBFs, Consider & $Fsory tune. with baoes nthe etary X-oefguratin and lat eral ores at each floor ht inereaselineary ith height, shown in Fig. le) Assuming the era snes of te Seams and columns have negligible impaston axa oes, the sil force { esorior column is equal to 1-33V(W/L). whee V=bese shear fod hand Late defined in Fig. 6). If the compression brace in the fst sory were removed, analogous to the brace buckling {Fig 6) the svat loa in the compression columns becomes 21330), which i 75 times greater than the eae withthe trace. For SCBFs wih 2-story X-bacng, brace bucking can increase column axial demands dramatically Fora fame with similar bracing configraion as Fg. 6 bu with stories, the amplification factor, Afr ax column Toads sory = when the compression brace is removed tit sly is derived using sti Zui Peerrare Ae @ where F,=lteral force at the floor above story fy Ay=story height of story x or js and c=1 if story x has chevron bracing (Gotiom half of the 2-story X-bracing) or c=0 if story has \Vebracng (top half ofthe 2-story X-bracing). Eq (I) assumes the compression bruce carries no force after buckling, representing a conservative baund on the amplification ofthe column axial loads immediately after buckling. For the case ofa uniform story height and linearly increasing lateral forces along the height (F,=xF\) Eq. (1) becomes: '38/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2003 omsonin Sop 2000 18481420 Radtion biel ASCE eas opi ee ppb ace optox Asl+ @ Slim qs, (1) and (2) indicate the largest amplifcation for columas svt few sores above them (columns in lowes buildings oF Columns athe op of tal builing), The meximum ampiestion ‘occurs for a 2-story frame and is 2.5 times (Eq. (2) with n=2, x el] Fora 3-toy frame, the amplification of column axial Tot the frst sory wena brace is remove a thes sys 1.75 times (Bq. (2) with |. c= 1] as previously discussed, however, or 8 Sextory fram, the amplifiation of eolumn sal Iba athe iat try when a brace i femoved athe fit sory is only 119 times [Eq. 2) with n=, x=1, c=) Eqs. (1) and (2) bound the smpicson of column demand that occurs immediately fer bucking. bot donot predit the ‘maximum force tat wll develop inthe column This depends on the tension eapacty ofthe braces, The maximum column demand can be bounded wsing capacity design principles. For the sory SCBF with C,=0115, the fits and secondstry comin load ‘vould be 4.6 times te elie demand if he secondtory brace reached tension capacity andthe thin-sory brace reached is compression capacity simultaneously. The noaliaed corn e- mand of 4.5 observed fr this fame (Fig. 3) i fess than the computed bound of 6 and appears resonable when the system behavior is understood. The normalized column demand for his frame ae much greater than the systernoversrength factor seen im the pushover analysis (i. 4). Trends in the data for the + and ISestry SCBF (Fig. 5. mide column) matched those observed for BRBFs, however larger sornaized column demands were observed. becase of seater brace oversizength (Fig. 2) and force redisbuion aller Buckling (i. 6) EBFs {As with the SCBFS, in some cases the column demands for the EBFs cannot be explained by strain hardening and oversiength alone. Consider the 3-story EBF with C,=0.15 in Fig. 5 (op right ploy). The normalized column demand at the second story is 1.9, ‘which is greater than the normalized ultimate capacity of any of the Links inthe frame (Fig. 2, top right). The lrger-than-expected column demand oceurs when the top lnk has opposite shear than the one in the story below. Fig. 7 shows link and column forces for this frame for two cases where all Inks ate at their nominal shear capacity. Case (a is typically assumed indesign, but in case (©) the column force is 30% higher at the second story. When ‘maximum column demands occurred atthe second story of the 3.story EBFs in the dynamic analyses, force distributions were Similar to that shown in Fig. 7(0) explaining the large second story demands observed in Fig. 5. Large column demands atthe eighth story of the 9-story EBPs (Fig. 5) are explained by the same phenomena Column Flexural Demands CColumn flexural demand data is presented in Fig. 8 in terms of column rotation, Column rotation at eacs floor level was come puted as the diference in interstory drift ofthe stories above and. below the floor (ollowing Sabelli etal, 2003). For BRBFs and EREs, maximum column rotations typically occurred atthe frst, story and were in the range of 0.005~0.025 rad (Fig. 8). SCBFS had more sporadic column rotations because damage tended to be ‘concentrated due to less consistent brace demandieapacity ratios eke EX s P= 53k(Comp) Py 151k (Comp) ” . Y= 62k) © Fg. 7. Forces in EB when all inks are at nominal capacity: (a all Tinks with postive shear; (b) top link with negative shear forall the floors. Experimental testing of columns subjected (0 high axial loads and drifts has demonstrated that columns can maintain axial strength for drifts of 0.07-0.09 rad (Newell and Uang 2006); these experimental capacities are significantly greater than the rotation demands observed inthis study (Fig. 8). Impact on Design ‘Oversrength Factors typically used in design are not appropriate for many eases. With the equivalent lateral force procedure, elas- tie columns demands, P, are amplified by the Factor yt rep- resent ultimate demands (ICC 2006). Smaller columns demands can be used if they represent the maximum forces that can be delivered to the column. The value of Oy for BRBFs, SCBFS, and EBFs is 2. From Fig. 5, this value is nonconservative for some cases (columns al the top ofall all frames and columns in SCBFS with 2-story X-bracing) and is overly conservative for others (col turnns atthe base of tal frames) From a practical standpoint, higher-than-expected demands on columns in the top of tall frames may be of limited concer, CColuenns a the tops of tll frames generally have excess capacity ‘because shape selection is usually governed by matching the size ‘of columns below of using the minimum practical shape avail- able. For example, forthe 18-siory BRBF wi 03, P, for the I6th story column was 400 KN (90 kips). Typical design pro- ‘ess would suggest a design demand of 2P,=800 KN (180 kips). ‘The lightest W14 shape that is not slender would be W144, with a factored nominal capacity of 1,740 KN (391 kips) which is 44P,. This capacity is greater than the observed demands for that colufan (Fig. 5). In most cases. oversized columns atthe top of, tall frames are adequate for the demands shown in Fig. 5, bow= ever, extra care is warranted for columns in upper stories of 'SCBFs because the normalized demands are so high. Higher-than-expected demands on columns in low-rise SBCFS with 2story X-bracing are a more serious concern because col ‘umns atthe base of buildings generally are not oversized. From ‘YOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2009/98core sey sey sey DoT oe column Retain rad) DoF (Column Rotation rad) 0.08 0.07 a2 Column Rotation (a) Fig, 8. Column rotation demands the 3.story SCBFS studied, column demands may be more than double the values currently used in design, due to force rest ‘bation after buckling that amplifies column Toads. For columns in 'SCBFs with the 2-story X-configuration, consideration should be given to postbuckling load distributions, similar to methods for beams in SCBFS with V-bracing (AISC 2005). Columns at the base of mid- and high-rise BRBFs and EBFs ccan be designed for lower demands than currently used. Maxie ‘mum normalized column demands of 1.4 (Fig. 5) were observed for 9- and 18-story BRBFs and EBFs; normalized demands were as low as LI for stronger frames. These demands are $5-10% of the demands currently used in many cases (2.0). The enalysis ‘results indicate that in aller buildings simultaneous yielding does not occur over the entire height during earthquake ioading In EBF desiga, yP, isnot always used for column design as it can be demonstrated that the maximum forces that can be de- livered are smaller. EBF provisions (AISC 2005) already account for the fact that simultaneous yielding and hardening does not foccur in tall frames. by permiting the use of an effective link hardening factor of 1.1 in column caleulations, rather than a facx tor of 1.41 (Okazaki etal. 2005), which would correspond to full link hardening, When this effective hardening factor is combined With Ry=1.1 and a factor of L.1 10 account for typical link over sizing (aominal shear capacity of a link divided by the elastic shear demand) the resuling combined factor is 1.1% 1.1% 1.1 '33. This factor can be compared with the normalized column demands given in Fig. 5. factor of 1.33 may be appropriate for columns atthe base of tll frames, but a greater factor should be used for frames less than 10 stories or forthe design of columns in the top stories of any frame, ‘Summary and Conclusions In this study, column demands were investigated in 36 frames representing three systems (BRBFs, SCBFS, and EBFs), three heights (3, 9, and 18 stories), and four strength levels using time history analyses, Study frames were designed according 1 current provision and had typical system overstrengths. ‘Maxiinum column axial demands from the analyses were nor- malized by the elastic column demands used in design, to give normalized column demands that can be compared directly with the oversrength factor commonly used in design. Conclusions from the study are as follows: 1. In SCBFS with 2-story X-bracing, brace buckling causes load redistribution that increases the column axial loads. For this, 'SCBF configuration, columns should be designed hased on the full tensile capacity ofthe brace. 2. Column axial demands in the upper stores of tll braced frames may be more than two times higher than those com- ‘monly used in design this has limited practical significance as top story columns are typically oversized and have excess strength capachy. 3. Tall braced frames (9-18 stores) do not experience simula- neous yielding over the entre height under seismic Toads “Maximum column axial demands atthe base of 9- and 18- sory BRBFs and EBFs were only 55-70% of the demands commonly used in design. Using more realistic column de- mands for the design of taller buildings may signiicanly reduce costs of the columns, base plates, anchor rods, and foundation system. 4, Column roiaional demands were in the range of (0.005~-0,025 rad: these demands are much lower than ex- perimentally demonstrated capacities, 5. Current provisions for columns in EBFs are only appropriate or designing columns atthe base of frames greater than nine stories, Larger demands should be used for columns atthe base of shorer frames, and all columns in upper stories. 40/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2008, 2% Reetoton ect ASCE Sano cop se pps ca rcptAcknowledgments ‘This work was possible due to support from Brigham Young Uni- versity. Matt Merrell, former student at Brigham Young Univer- sity, assisied in the design of the frames used in the study. Feedback from reviewers significantly improved the paper. References ‘Adams, D, (2005). “Technolgy triumphs." Moder Stee! Contr, 450) 2-24, “American Institut of Steel Construction (AISC). (2008) Seismic proi- sons for stractral steel buldngs, Chicago, (Car, A. (2004). Ruaunoto users’ manual, Univeriy of Canterbury Press, Christchurch, New Zealand Coy, B. (2007) "Experimental testing of pinned beam connections for bucking restrained braced frames.” MS thei, Brigham Young Uni, Provo, Uah Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2002). “NEHRP ree- ‘ommende provisions for seismic regulations fr new buildings and ‘other structures” FEMA 450, Washington, DC. Gupta, A. and Keawinkler, H. (1999) "Prediction of seismic demanis for SMRFs with ductile connecéons and elements.” Rep. No. SAC/ ‘BD-99106, SAC Join Venue, Sacramento, Cali. all. (2006). "Problems encountered from the we (or misuse) of Ra leigh damping” Eanhguate Eng. Siract. Dye, 38(3), 525-84 International Code Council (CC). (2006). Intemational building code, ‘Whiter, Cali Koboevc, Sand Redwood, R. (1997). “Design and seismic response of shea vial eccenuically braced frames." Can. J. Ci Eng, 21(1), 761-771 Kram, ¥ C., and Farrow, K.7 (2008). “Grouné motion sealing met (08s for diferent site condions and stacural characteristics" Earth. ‘quake Eng. Struct. Dy, 3218), 2425-2480, Leoward, LS. (199). "Peformance of steel brace member.” ME the- sis, Uni. of Canerbuy. Christchurch, New Zealand. MacRae, G, Kimura, ¥, and Roode, C. (2008), “Effect of column si ness om brace frame seismic Behave." J Sire, Bg, 13003, 38 31 Mahin, S. Use, P, Aiken, L, Field, C, and Ko, B (2004), “Seismic performance of buckling restrained braced frame sysiems.” Proc 13th World Conf on Earthquake Engineering, CABE, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Merit. Uang, C-M. and Benoni, G 2003) “Subsssemblage teting Of Corebrace Bucklingesined. braces.” TH-200301, Dept. of Stu. Eng. Univ. of California at San Diego, La la, Cali ‘Newell J, and Uang, C-M, (2006) “Cytic behavior of see columns ‘with combined high axial load and drift demand.” SSRP-0622, Dep. ‘of Strut Eng. Uni. of California at San Dieg, La ola, Calf Okazaki T, Are. Gy, Ryu, HC. and Engelhard, M-D. (2008). “Bx- evita study of local buckling, oversirengih and fracture of inks In ecenically brace frames J Srut Eng 11(10), 1526-1535, Prinz, G. (2007). "Impact of beam splicing on seksi esponse of buck: ling restrained braced frames." MS thesis, Brigham Young Univ, Provo, Utah Ramadan, T, and Ghobarah, A. (1995) “Analytical model for shersink ‘behavior J. Siac. Eng. 121(11), 574-1580, Reavele, L., Okahshi , and Fat, C. (2008) Corebrace series buck Ting restrained brace test result, Dep. of Chil and Environmental Enginsesing, Univ. of Uah, Salt Lake Cy Remennikov, A. and Walpole, W. (1997), "Analytical prediction of six mie behivior for concenicaly-braced steel systems.” Earthquake Eng. Sit. Dy, 2618), 859-874, Remennikoy, A, and Walpole, W. (1998). "Seismic behavior and dee ‘minis design procedures for steel Vbvaced fame.” Eurguate Spectra, 142), 335-355, Richards, P. (2008). “Cyclic stability and capacity design of ste] eecen- tccally braced frames." PAD. Disseruton, Uni. of California, San Diego, La ella, Cali. Richarés,P, and Uang, C-M, 2006). “Testing proteolfor shor ink in escenvicaly braced fames” J. Siac. Brg, 1326), 1183-1191 icles, 1M, and Popov, EP (1984), “nels ink element for EBF seis analysis" J. Struct. Bg. (20(2), 481-463, Sabeli, R, Main, S. A. and Chang, C. (2002). "Seismic demands oa steel bracedframe buildings with buckling resvaned braces” Eng Strcty 2518), 655-666 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2000/41 ‘oman 0 Sop 2000 8 48474208 Radisbaton be! ACE cam or opt tepnaascearpeopyrahe