You are on page 1of 6

Proceedings of the 11th WSEAS International Conference on Sustainability in Science Engineering


ANDREI CRIAN, AUREL STRATAN Department of Steel Structures and Structural Mechanics University POLITEHNICA of Timioara Ioan Curea no.1 ROMANIA,
Abstract: The present paper compares overstrength demands on non-dissipative memebers in three seismic design codes: P100-1/2006 (RO), EN 1998 (EU) and AISC 341-05 (USA) based on the analysis of a multistory eccentrically braced frame. The structural behavior was studied using pushover and time-history analysis. The nonlinear behavior of structural members was modeled using plastic hinges defined according to FEMA 356, while acceptance criteria specified in the same document were used. Key-Words: Pushover, Eccentrically braced frames, Seismic overstrength P100, EN 1998, AISC 341-05, FEMA 356. demands of the three codes was done. The only difference in design was concerning the non-dissipative members.
EBF Gravity Frames

1 Introduction
The present paper analyzes the behavior of a multistory eccentrically braced frame designed in accordance with the provisions of P100-1/2006, the Romanian seismic design code, EN 1998, the European seismic design code and AISC 341-05, the American seismic design code. Three structures were designed using EN 1993-1 and EN 1998 provisions, but with overstrength requirements for non-dissipative members established according to the investigated codes. Evaluation of seismic performance was accomplished using pushover and time-history analysis. The inelastic behavior was modeled using elastic-plastic hinges based on recommendations of FEMA 356 which was used also for establishing acceptance limits of plastic deformations.

2 The structure under study

The structure that was analyzed consists of a multistory eccentrically braced frame of 9 stories of 4.00m, a base story of 4.50m, three spans of 7.50m of which the central span is seismic resistant and the two side spans are gravitaty-only frames. On the other direction, the three bays have the same conformation, as presented in figure 1. All interior frames are gravity-only. The location of the structure was considered to be a very active seismic zone (Bucharest, Romania), having PGA=0.24g, TC=1.6s and 0=2.75. For the beginning the structure was designed in accordance with Romanian design codes, all loads were applied (dead loads, live loads, wind and snow loads, seismic load) and all the elements were designed in accordance. After the gravity frames were design, the design of seismic resistant frames in accordance with the

4,50m 4,00m 4,00m 4,00m 4,00m 4,00m 4,00m 4,00m 4,00m 4,00m
7,50m 7,50m 7,50m

7,50m 40,50m

Fig. 1 Plan view and elevation of structure

ISSN: 1790-2769


ISBN: 978-960-474-080-2


Proceedings of the 11th WSEAS International Conference on Sustainability in Science Engineering

The dual-steel concept was used in order to reduce the cross-section of the columns, so the S235 steel was used for links and beam outside links and S355 was used for braces and columns. Short links were used in the eccentrically braced frame. The condition for a link to be classified as short is based on the formula:
e 1.6M Pl ,link / VPl ,link

3 The structural design

Even if the formula for link shear force capacity is different for P100 and EN 1998 on one side and AISC 341 on the other side, the difference is small enough for the dissipative elements to have the same cross-section for all the three designed structures. Due to different demands imposed by the seismic design codes for the structural non dissipative elements, the resulting structures differ. The overstrength demands for the three codes are translated into the following formulas. For P100 and EN 1998: N Ed N ed ,G 1.1 ov N ed ,E
M Ed VEd M ed ,G 1.1 Ved ,G 1.1
ov ov

M ed ,E

Ved ,E

with the only difference in calculation of the 1.1ov term, more specific . So, in case of P100, represents the maximum strength reserve of the dissipative elements (links)
i V pl ,link i Ved ,link

Fig. 2 The structure resulted from AISC design

) . The same term, in

case of EN 1998 is considered to be the minimum strength reserve of the dissipative elements,
i V pl ,link i V ed ,link

) . In case of AISC 341, design forces

for non-dissipative members (columns, braces and columns) should correspond to fully yielded and strain hardened links. Different factors to account for strain hardening are used in case of braces (1.25) and beams and columns (1.1). In order to accomplish this requirements, according to chapter 15.2b, 15.6a, and 15.6b from AISC 341, a series o lateral forces were applied on the structure in order to obtain a general failure mechanism (shear plastic resistance of all links, taking into consideration the overstrength). Additionally, in certain conditions, columns need to be checked for amplified seismic loads obtained from the expression of the overstrength demand:
N Ed N ed N ed , E

The factor is given as a fixed value for a given structural type; for eccentrically braced frame, in this case, the specified value is 2.

Fig. 3 The structure resulted from EC8 design

ISSN: 1790-2769


ISBN: 978-960-474-080-2

Proceedings of the 11th WSEAS International Conference on Sustainability in Science Engineering

links, in case of EBF). This approach takes into account the strength reserve of all links and gives a better estimate of the forces into structural elements after the links yield. In addition to this, the use of a specific value for in case of AISC (very close to the min from EC8) have the same issues as for EC8, but, AISC, uses this load combination just in order to verify the axial force in columns (no bending moment considered). The change in cross section changes the response for each structure. For example the structure designed in accordance with P100 it has a period of vibration of 1,36s being the more rigid structure. On the other side the structure designed in accordance to AISC provisions has a period of vibration of 1.52s. The differences in cross sections for columns and braces are responsible for this variation in rigidity. In between these two, there is the structure designed with EC8 which has a period of vibration of 1.48 s.

4. Modeling of nonlinear behavior

In order to be able to compare the overall behavior of the three structures, the same non-linear model was adopted for the structures. The plastic hinges that were considered to form due to post-elastic behavior were defined in accordance with the provisions recommended by FEMA 356 Table C2-1 which states that the formation of plastic hinges for columns is due to an interaction between bending moment and axial force (the axial force reducing the bending moment resisting capacity), for braces is due to axial force, for beams is mainly due to bending moment and for the link, taking into consideration that it was above calculated to be short, it is due to shear force. Three acceptance levels were considered: IO immediate occupancy, LS life safety and CP collapse prevention. Due to the fact that the braced frames were used with gravitational frames (not with moment resisting frames) seismic force was resisted by the braced frames and as a result in the lower part of the columns the axial force exceeded the limit imposed by FEMA 356 for a deformation controlled hinge. The consequence is the use of force controlled hinges for which there is no significant plastic deformation, so in fact they exhibit a brittle behavior.

Fig. 4 The structure resulted from P100 design

N Ed >0.4, without consideration of the amplified N pl seismic load, where NEd design axial force and Npl is the nominal axial strength of the column, the required axial compressive and tensile strength, considered in the absence of any applied moment, shall be determined using the load combinations stipulated by the applicable building code including the amplified seismic load. The resulting structures have the following periods of vibration: 1.36 s for P100, 1.48 s for EN 1998 and 1.52 s for the structure designed in accordance with the AISC 341. The EC8 design code has similar provisions to P100. The difference comes from the value. As a result of these approaches the final values of seismic amplification factor had the maximum value for P100 (2.68) design code and close values for EC8 (2.09). The use of min in case of EC8 could lead to larger forces in columns and further to development of plastic hinges. In case of P100, max could lead to larger overstrength demands, increasing the rigidity of the structure, but this overstrength demand cannot guarantee a superior behavior for the structure (higher demand for ductility with the increase of rigidity and decrease of the period). Unlike P100 and EC8, AISC recommends the use of lateral forces that will be applied to the structure in order to obtain a plastic failure mechanism (yielding in all

Fig. 5 Force vs deformation curve of hinges

ISSN: 1790-2769


ISBN: 978-960-474-080-2

Proceedings of the 11th WSEAS International Conference on Sustainability in Science Engineering

(deformation controlled and force controlled) Further on, on the type 1 curve were set the acceptance criteria IO, LS and CP, as showed in the following figure:

2500 2000 1500

1000 500 0





Figure 1: Generalized component force-deformation relations for depicting modeling and acceptance criteria The plastic hinges properties were calculated for each composed cross-section (Malta-cross) and applied to the structural elements. The other elements plastic hinges were automatically generated and applied to the elements. For columns and beams outside link two plastic hinges were considered (defined by an interaction between axial force and bending moment for columns and bending moment for beams) and for links and braces one plastic hinge in the middle of element (defined by axial force for braces and shear force for links). The formulae used can be found in FEMA 356. The considered acceptance criteria levels are summarized in the following table: Table 1: The acceptance criteria SLSIO ULSLS Member (=0.4) (=1.0) 0.005 rad 0.11 rad LINK 0.25y 0.50y COLUMNS1 0.25y 2.00y BEAMS 0.25c 4.00c BRACES Where y is the yield rotation for the considered member, and c is the axial deformation at expected buckling load.

Figure 2: The pushover curves For the analysis a triangular distribution of forces was used based on the assumption that the structures will respond in the first mode of vibration. Due to the fact that the structures differ by very little the same lateral forces were considered for the pushover analysis. The forces applied on the structure are summarized in the following table: Table 2: The lateral forces for PUSHOVER kN Lateral Forces, Level z= m Fb=1451.2 1 4.5 26.681 2 8.5 59.329 3 12.5 86.025 4 16.5 113.37 5 20.5 133.88 6 24.5 157.43 7 28.5 181.89 8 32.5 204.12 9 36.5 228.85 10 40.5 259.63 Table 3: PUSHOVER summary Base POINT Shear Disp. STEP on graph Force <mm> <kN> 4 1533.68 87 10 2070.36 205 5 1586.89 85 10 2067.5 196 4 1633.26 74 11 2107.20 192

Design Code AISC EC8 P100

5 The pushover analysis results

Even if the formula for link shear force capacity is different for P100 and EN 1998 on one side and AISC 341 on the other side, the difference

refers to deformation controlled plastic hinges. DOES NOT apply in case of force controlled hinges

Taking into consideration the pushover analysis the behavior of the three structures is mostly the same. The difference, as can be observed, of maximum base shear force, is slightly bigger for the structure designed in accordance with P100 due to its higher rigidity. The difference in rigidity reflects not only in maximum base shear force, but also in top displacement of the structures.

ISSN: 1790-2769


ISBN: 978-960-474-080-2

Proceedings of the 11th WSEAS International Conference on Sustainability in Science Engineering

The first plastic hinges appear at levels 2 and 3, these being the ones that will fail at the maximum base shear force. For all structures the failure mechanism is the desired one, the only structural element that forms plastic hinges is the link. In the following table are summarized the maximum base shear force, total top displacement and the displacement for which the first plastic hinge forms.

6. The time-history analysis results

In order make a more accurate comparison, a nolinear dynamic analysis considering 7 semiartificial accelerograms scaled to the design spectum was done. The performance "basic" level was chosen from P100-3, Table A.3 and the acceptance criteria was based on FEMA 356 provisions. Table 4: Used accelerograms Source - year Station Dir Vrancea - 77 INCERC NS Vrancea - 86 EREN N10W Vrancea - 86 INCERC NS Vrancea - 86 Magurele NS Vrancea - 90 ISPH/ARM S3E Vrancea - 90 INCERC NS Vrancea - 90 Magurele NS In all cases (all seven accelerograms) no plastic hinges formed in braces. Due to this reason, they will not make the subject of the further discussions. The mean values of plastic rotations for links of the three structures after the use of all 7 accelerograms are presented below for IO and LS: Table 5: Plastic rotations for link IO Ratio (Demand/Capacity) LEVEL AISC EC8 P100 Lv9 6.318 6.378 3.722 Lv8 8.462 5.384 6.378 Lv7 7.816 6.366 7.432 Lv6 2.894 2.664 2.09 Lv5 4.222 3.822 5.546 Lv4 6.176 6.77 10.242 Lv3 13.28 13.496 13.574 Lv2 13.682 14.104 14.118 Lv1 6.564 4.718 6.406 GL 1.952 1.73 1.57 Mean (%) 714% 654% 711% The limit imposed by FEMA 356 for plastic rotations in case of immediate occupancy is very restrictive (0.005rad) and as seen in the above table the link rotation demand is not satisfied and it is exceeded by far

for all three structures. The three seismic design codes do not offer a comprehensive method in order to obtain a structure that will comply with the imposed acceptance criteria. The SLS requirements for storey drifts limitations, in accordance with P100 and EC8 demands were satisfied, but, as seen above, they did not limit the link plastic rotations. This can be a consequence of the codes omission to take into consideration the structural types, sway or nonsway, before setting a demand. In fact, code drift requirements are intended to limit non-structural damage, neglecting the structural one. Consequently, rigid frames (concentrically or eccentrically braced) can experience large inelastic demands at SLS (IO performance objective), as shown by the previous results. Table 6: Plastic rotations for link LS Ratio (Demand/Capacity) LEVEL AISC EC8 P100 Lv9 0.724 0.743 0.832 Lv8 0.729 0.798 0.798 Lv7 0.753 0.789 0.789 Lv6 0.680 0.774 0.774 Lv5 0.735 0.774 0.774 Lv4 0.767 0.767 0.767 Lv3 0.767 0.767 0.767 Lv2 0.767 0.767 0.767 Lv1 0.762 0.658 0.725 GL 0.762 0.701 0.572 Mean (%) 74% 75% 76% In case of Life Safety perforamnce objective, the demand was fulfilled by all three structures; the verification was done in order to protect the nonstructural elements of the structures and to be able to respect the seismic joint condition between two nearby structures. The verification for drift in case of ULS, as in case of SLS, does not take into account the structural system used. For beams and columns the imposed limits were satisfied; the values are listed below in table 7: Table 7: Plastic rotations for columns LS Columns <mean values> Design Braced frame Unbraced frames code Demand Capacity Demand Capacity [rad] [rad] [rad] [rad] AISC 6.3210-3 2.6210-3 0.1310-3 2.6310-3 EC8 1.5010-3 2.0410-3 0.6910-3 2.6310-3 P100 1.4210-3 2.6410-3 0.3810-3 2.6310-3 For plastic hinges in columns, the force controlled hinges were considered having the plastic rotation

ISSN: 1790-2769


ISBN: 978-960-474-080-2

Proceedings of the 11th WSEAS International Conference on Sustainability in Science Engineering

capacity equals to zero (no plastic capacity). The average plastic deformation was calculated for each hinge of each beam/column and the considered value is the maximum value from the calculated averages. The only structure that exceeds the limits imposed by FEMA 356 is the AISC structure.

7 Conclusion
This paper offers a comparison of overstrength demands for non-dissipative members according to three seismic design codes: AISC, EC8 and P100. According to the pushover analysis the three structures had small differences between their maximum top displacement, maximum base shear and the plastic hinge formation (only in links) so that it can be considered that the overall behavior (the collapse mechanism) was the desired one. For the time-history analysis, the three structures, despite the fact that the failure mechanism was the expected one for all and for IO (SLS) none of the three structures formed plastic hinges in nondisipative elements, had some particularities. For LS (ULS) load combination some plastic hinges formed in nondisipative elements. For the IO (SLS) even if the verification for storey drift was done in design and the requirements of EC8 and P100 were met by all structures (demand for nonstructural members), the time-history analysis revealed that storey drift requirements were exceeded. This fact is due to link plastic deformation, aspect not taken into account by the simplified elastic analysis in the design codes. The plastic rotations for links were exceeded by more than 650%. For LS (ULS) all the three structures had the expected behavior, the link plastic rotations are below the limit specified by FEMA. Even if plastic hinges appeared in some nondissipative elements (some beams and columns), they were small and met the requirements imposed by FEMA. The storey drifts exceeded the 2.5% value specified by P100. The structures designed in accordance with the demands of P100 and EC8 satisfied the demands of FEMA356 (not considering the IO case). The structure designed in accordance with AISC exceeded the demand for column plastic hinges as it can be seen table 7. The fact that all plastic rotations were under the specified requirements of FEMA indicates that the seismic load reduction factor q=6 was well chosen for the structural type under study.

References: [1]American Institute Of Steel Construction, Inc. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, March 9, 2005, incl. Supplement No. 1. [2]Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings [3]P100-1/2006 Prevederi de proiectare pentru cladiri, redactarea a IV-a [4]P100-3 - Prevederi pentru evaluarea i pentru proiectarea consolidrii construciilor vulnerabile seismic draft [5]Helmut Krawinkler, G.D.P.K Seneviratna, Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation [6]FEMA 356, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings [7]The Institution of Civil, Engineers, Manual for the design of steelwork building structures to EC3 [8]Akshay Gupta and Helmut Krawinkler, Member, ASCE, Behavior of Ductile SMRFS At Various Seismic Hazard Levels [9]Ahmed Elghazouli, Seismic design of steel structures to EUROCODE 8, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial college London, UK, 2007

ISSN: 1790-2769


ISBN: 978-960-474-080-2