You are on page 1of 104

Seismic Design of Steel Structures:

North American Practice &


Challenges for Industrial Buildings
Robert Tremblay
cole Polytechnique de Montral
Colegio de Ingenieros
Santiago, Chile
March 18, 2014

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R
ASCE/SEI 7-10
3-1/2
4-1/2
8
7

3-1/4
6
8

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

Plan
Ductile seismic design
Braced frame systems
Concentrically braced frames
Eccentrically braced frames 341-10
Buckling restrained braced frames

Moment frames and plate wall systems


Heavy industrial buildings: challenges
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

Ductile Seismic Design


1.5

1.5

1.28 W

1.0

1.0

V/W

V/W

0.5
0.0

-0.5

-1.0

-1.0
-1.5

0.0126 h

/ h (%)

0.0
-1.0

W
T = 0.38 s
5% damping

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

1.0

/ h (%)

0.0

-0.5

-1.5

Elastic

0.5

0.5

Horizontal 90 deg.

h
ag (g)

0.0
-0.5
0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

Time (s)

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

Take advantage of the


high ductility of steel

Ductile
response

Fu
Fy

Fracture,
instability,
etc.

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

1.0

1.0

V/W

0.33 W

0.5

V/W

0.0

0.5
0.0

-0.5

-0.5

-1.0

-1.0
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Vy = 0.25 W

1.0

/ h (%)

/ h (%)

0.0
-1.0

-0.017 h
1.5

1.5

1.28 W

1.0

1.0

V/W

V/W

0.5
0.0

-0.5

-1.0

-1.0
-1.5

0.0126 h

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

1.0

/ h (%)

0.0

-0.5

-1.5

Elastic

0.5

/ h (%)

0.0
-1.0

W
T = 0.38 s
5% damping

0.5

Horizontal 90 deg.

h ag (g)

0.0
-0.5
0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

Time (s)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

10

M. Englehardt

Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal, 1996

1.5
1.0

M / Mpr

0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-0.06

Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal, 1996

-0.04

-0.02

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

Plastic Rotation (rad.)


R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

11

Inelastic buckling
with plastic hinge (typ.)

Tension
yielding (typ.)

1.2
0.8

0.4

Plastic
Hinge

P / Py

P
P+

0.0
-0.4
-0.8
HSS 102x76x6.4 - KL/r = 112
-1.2
-8

-4

/ y

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

12

0.4

0.2

0.2

V/W

V/W

0.4

0.0
-0.2
-0.4

Vy = 0.25 W

0.0
-0.2
-0.4

-0.36 W

0.018 h

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

/ h (%)

1.0

/ h (%)

0.0
-1.0

0.33 W

0.4

0.4

V/W
h

Vy = 0.25 W

V/W

0.2
0.0

0.2
0.0

-0.2

-0.2

-0.4

-0.4
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

1.0

/ h (%)

/ h (%)

0.0
-1.0

-0.017 h

0.5

Horizontal 90 deg.

T = 0.38 s
5% damping

ag (g)

0.0
-0.5
0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

Time (s)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

13

Effects of Magnitude and Distance


Earthquakes in California
Site Class B 5% damping

2.5

1.5

M 7.0-7.5
10-20 km

1.5

S a (g)

Sa (g)

2.0

1.0
0.5
0.0

2.0

M 7.0-7.5
30-50 km

1.0
0.5
0.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Period, T (s)

Period, T (s)

M 6.5-7.0
10-20 km

Sa (g)

0.8

1.0

0.4
0.0

M 6.5-7.0
30-50 km

1.0

S a (g)

1.2

0.5
0.0

M 6.5-7.0
70-100 km

0.5
0.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Period, T (s)

Period, T (s)

Period, T (s)

1.0

Sa (g)

S a (g)

1.6

0.5

M 6.0-6.5
30-50 km

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Period, T (s)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

14

Design Spectra
& Design for Inelastic Response
2.0
1.6
Los Angeles Area
Site Class B

1.2

Sa (g), Cs

Sa (g)

1.6

M6.0 - M7.5
Dist. = 10-100 km

0.8
0.4

Los Angeles Area


Site Class B

1.2

Sa (Elastic)
Cs (OCBF - R = 6.0)

0.8
x 1/R
0.4

0.0

0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Period, T (s)

2.5

3.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Period, T (s)

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

15

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

16

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

Capacity Design Procedure


V=

Poutrelle
(typ.)

Poutre de toit
(typ.)
Feui lle de
tabl ier mtall ique
typ.)

Perimeter
members
Contr eventement
(typ.)

17

Ve
R

Brace
connections Foundations

Poteau
(typ.)

V
Roof
Diaphragm

Bracing
members

Anchor rods

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

18

Two-Step Capacity Design Procedure:


Grav.

Grav.
E

1. Select Braces:
Design for gravity + E
Check KL/r, b/t, etc. for ductile
response
2. Design other elements :

Grav.

Grav.
>E
Cu

>E

Grav.
C'u

Grav.
Ty

Gusset plates designed in


compression for the expected
brace compressive strength
Gusset plate designed in tension
for the expected brace tensile
strength
Column designed for gravity
plus expected brace tensile
strength
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

19

Ductile Seismic Force Resisting Systems


Tension
yielding

Plastic
Hinge

Plastic
Hinge (typ.)

Compression
yielding
Tension
yielding

Plastic
Hinge

Plastic
Hinge (typ.)

Shear
yielding

Shear
yielding

Plastic
Hinge (typ.)
Tension
yielding

End-plate
Bending

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

20

10

ASCE 7-10
AISC 341-10
AISC 360-10

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

21

NBCC 2010

CSA S16-09

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

22

11

Building code main objective is to protect life


and prevent structural collapse under ground
motions
In view of high level of ground motion
considered (2% in 50 years) and the difficulty
in predicting ground motions and their
effects on structures
ductile seismic design represents an
effective strategy to achieve code objectives
by controlling the system response and force
demand.
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

23

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

24

Control of
Local Buckling

12

Expected (probable)
material strength

Liu, J. et al. (2007). AISC Eng.

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

25

Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs)


Energy dissipated in bracing members through
tensile yielding and flexural hinging
Tension
yielding (typ.)

Inelastic buckling
with plastic hinge (typ.)

Connections and other members expected to


remain essentially elastic
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

26

13

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

27

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

28

14

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

29

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

30

15

Rehabilitation

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

31

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

32

Kobe 1995

16

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

33

Northridge 1994
Photos from Peter Maranian, Brandow and Associates (P. Uriz Thesis, 2005)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

34

17

Fracture in
1st cycle at
1 2% hs

1
2
Uriz and Mahin (2004)
Univ. of California, Berkeley

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

35

/ hs (%)
-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

1.2

P / A gF y

0.8
0.4
0.0
-0.4
-0.8
-1.2
-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

/ LH (%)

1.0

1.5

2.0

HSS 254 x 254 x 12


b/t = 18, KL/r = 42

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

36

18

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

37

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

38

19

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

/ h s (%)

P / Py

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

/ hs (%)
1.0

2.0

3.0

-3.0

-2.0

0.0

/ hs (%)
1.0

2.0

3.0

-3.0

1.2

1.2

1.2

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

-0.4

-0.4

-0.4

RHS-4
KL/r = 40
b0/t = 17

-0.8
-1.2
-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

/ LH (%)

1.0

1.5

RHS-2
KL/r = 40
b0/t = 13

-0.8
-1.2

2.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

/ LH (%)

1.0

1.5

2.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

2.0

3.0

0.8

0.8

0.4

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

-0.4

-0.4

-0.4

CHS-1
KL/r = 42
b0/t = 30
-0.5

0.0

0.5

/ LH (%)

-1.5

-4.0

0.4

-1.2

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.0

3.0

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

CHS-2
KL/r = 62
b 0/t = 31

-0.8
-1.2
-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

/ L H (%)

0.5

/ LH (%)

1.0

1.5

2.0

/ hs (%)
1.0

0.8

-0.8

1.0

RHS-19
KL/r = 60
b 0/t = 13
-2.0

1.2

-1.0

0.0

/ hs (%)
1.2

-1.5

-1.0

-0.8

1.2

-2.0

-2.0

-1.2

/ hs (%)

P / Py

-1.0

39

1.0

1.5

2.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

W-6
KL/r = 67
b0/t = 5.9

-0.8
-1.2
-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

/ LH (%)

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

3.0

40

20

1.2

0.4

0.0

-0.4
-0.8
-1.2

KL/r = 42
HSS 254x254x12
-6

-4

-2

KL/r = 93
HSS 127x76x4.8
2

-6

-4

-2

KL/r = 142
HSS 76x76x4.8

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

Ductility at Fracture, f

P / AgFy

0.8

10

25
20
15

f = 2.4 + 8.3

10
5
0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Brace Slenderness, = (Fy / Fe)0.5

2.5

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

41

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

42

21

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

43

W6
W4

6000

P (kN)

4000
2000
0
3

2000
4000
6000

W4W6

Interstorey Drift Angle (%)

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

44

22

Design Bracing Configuration


Along any braced line, between 30% & 70% of lateral
load is resisted by tension braces
Tension-only braced frames not permitted
K-bracing not permitted

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

45

R. Tremblay, cole Polytechnique of Montreal & D. Mitchell, McGill University

46

23

Design Bracing Members


Braces must resist gravity + lateral loads
Pn in tension and compression as per AISC 360-10
KL/r < 200
Section must meet seismic hd limits
For built-up sections, individual components must
meet KL/r limits and stitch subjected to shear under
buckling must meet minimum shear strength

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

47

LH

KLout 0.9 LH
KLin 0.5 LN

KLout 0.5 LH
KLin 0.5 LN

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

48

24

Bracing Configuration
Tension-only braced frames permitted

Bracing Members
Section must meets b/t limits that vary with KL/r

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

49

Design Expected Brace Strengths

P / Py

Texp

Cexp

Cexp

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

50

25

C'u / AgF y (Ductility = 1.0)

1.0
0.8
Cu (S16-01, n = 1.34)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

1.2

Cu (S16-01, n = 1.34)
Cu (AISC 1999)

0.8

0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

50

100

150

1.0

2.0

2.5

Cu (S16-01, n = 1.34)
C'u (mean)

0.4
0.2
0.0
0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1.0
0.8

Cu (S16-01, n = 1.34)
C'u (mean)

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.5

1.0

200

KL/r

1.5

0.6

0.0

0.5

0.8

0.0

0.6

C'u / Ag Fy (Ductility = 5.0)

Cu / AgF y

1.0

C'u / AgFy (Ductily = 3.0)

0.0
1.0

50

1.5

100

2.0

150

2.5

200

KL/r

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

51

Texp

Cexp

Texp = A RyFy

Cexp

Cexp = A (1.12 Fcr) where Fcre = Fcr with RyFy


< A RyFy
Cexp = 0.3 Cexp
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

52

26

Texp = A RyFy
Cexp = A (1.12 Fcr) ,Fcre = Fcr with RyFy
< A RyFy
Cexp = 0.3 Cexp

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

53

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

54

Schimdt and Bratlett (2002)

27

Design Brace Connection


Must resist brace Texp & 1.1 Cexp
Must allow for ductile rotational behavior or
resist 1.1 x brace expected flexural strength

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

55

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

56

28

Archambault et al. (1995)


Tremblay and Bolduc (2002)
cole Polytechnique,Montreal

Kobe 1995

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

57

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

58

Yang and Mahin (2004)


Univ. of California, Berkeley

29

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

59

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

60

30

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

61

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

62

Kobe
1995

31

Sabelli (2003)

Sabelli (2003)

Sabelli (2005)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

Prototype

63

Test Specimen
L

C-C

TS

2t

2t

35O

Attachment to
load frame:

Gusset
plate

Cover
plate

Cover
plate

Specimen

End Restraint
35

End
Hinge

5182 (min) @ 7937 (max)

Gusset
plate

290

102
Side View

Elevation

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

64

32

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

65

Design Columns and Beams


Must resist gravity loads plus two brace force
scenarios:
Upon first buckling & yielding (Texp & Cexp)
In post-buckling range (Texp & Cexp)
Beams in V and inverted-V bracing must be
continuous between columns
Column sections must meet hd
Beam sections must meet md

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

66

33

Brace force scenarios for columns:

F3

F3
Texp,3

Cexp,3

F2

Cexp,3

F2
Texp,2

F1

F3
Texp,3

F2

Cexp,2

F1

Texp,2

Cexp,2

F1
Texp,1

C exp,1

At Buckling

Texp,1

Cexp,1

Post-Buckling

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

67

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

68

Northridge 1994
Photos from Finley 1999
(P. Uriz Thesis, 2005)

34

Taiwan 1999

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

69

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

70

35

Brace force scenarios for beams:


1.2 wD+ 1.0 w L

Cexp,x+1

1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L

Cexp,x+1

Texp,x+1

FL,x
Texp,x

Cexp,x

Cexp,x

1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L

Cexp,x+1

Texp,x+1

FL,x

Cexp,x+1

FL,x

FR,x
Cexp,x

FR,x
Texp,x

1.2 wD+ 1.0 w L

Texp,x+1

Texp,x+1

FL,x

FR,x

FR,x
Cexp,x

Texp,x

At Buckling

Texp,x

Post-Buckling
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

71

5 @ 9000 = 45 000
300
(slab edge)

BF (typ.)

EBF

BRBF

2 @ 4000
= 8000

MRF (typ.)

5 @ 9000 = 45 000

SCBF

5500
ELEVATIONS

PLAN
Gravity loads:
Roof: Dead = 3.2 kPa
Live = 1.0 kPa
Floor: Dead = 3.5 kPa
Partitions = 1.0 kPa
Live = 3.8 kPa
Exterior walls = 1.5 kPa
Seismic Load Data (NCh433):
Zone 2
Soil Type C
A= 0.30 g
In-plane torsion omitted

[mm]

[mm]

Load Combinations:
1.2D + 1.6L
1.2D + 1.0L + 1.4E
0.9D + 1.4E
Seismic weight:
P = 7720 kN (Level 9)
12635 kN (Levels 2-8)
12840 kN (Level 1)

Note: Redundancy factor, ,


and seismic load effects
with overstrength factor, 0,
as specified in ASCE 7-10
are not considered.

Steel:
BRB cores: Fyc = 260-290 MPa
Other members: Fy = 345 MPa
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

72

36

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

73

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

74

Static method of analysis

37

Brace Design

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

75

Column Design

599

599

2907

2001
169
-0.9 x 644 (D) 2492
= 1913

7007

599
2907

1103

2001

4890

169

1103

4890
169

7007

599

169

4092

4437

4092
2591

4749 + 1.2 x 644 (D)


+ 1.0 x 372 (L)
= 5893

7916

7916

At Buckling
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

76

38

Column Design

856

856

856
2907

2907

331

600

4890

600
812

812
-0.9 x 644 (D) 662
= 82

1103

812
7007

7007

856

4890
812

1227

5136 + 1.2 x 644 (D)


+ 1.0 x 372 (L)
= 6280

1227

4437

777
6086

6085

Post-Buckling
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

77

Beam Design
1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L= 8.71

1498

1498

-1498

1103

2907

1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L= 8.71

1498

1210

2907

Mu = 2785

2001

1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L= 24.0

2907
1077

4890

842

2001
-939
7007

4092

842

4890

Mu = 243

1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L= 24.0

4890
939

331
-2565

600

Mu = 243

1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L= 24.0

939

Mu = 3939

2907

1103
-2800

1210

331

1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L= 24.0

1077

1210

-1210

600
939
Mu = 759

556

-556
7007

4890
556
1227

556
Mu = 3896

[kN,m]

At Buckling

Post-Buckling
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

78

39

Consider more realistic brace KL

21
60
+
00
45

/Hi

e
ng

4000

0+
75

/-

41.6

9000

W610 Beam

Bolted End
Plate Connection

Brace sizes are reduced, increasing T*, reducing seismic loads


T* = 0.55 s -> 0.65 s
C = 0.119 -> 0.093 (22% decrease in seismic loads)

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

79

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

80

40

SCBF
2 @ 4000
= 8000
5500

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

81

Eccentrically Braced Frames


Energy is dissipated through shear or flexure
in link beams
Plastic
Hinge (typ.)

Shear
yielding

Connections and other members (including beams


outside links) expected to remain essentially elastic
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

82

41

Filiatrault et al.

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

83

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

84

Residential buildings
Montreal
Martoni Cyr

42

Hockey Canadian, Montreal


R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

85

Wellington, New-Zealand 2013

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

86

43

Built-up rectangular tubular link beams

Contreventement non requis


pour le segment ductile !

Berman, J.W, and Bruneau, M. 2008. Tubular Links for


Eccentrically Braced Frames I: Finite Element Parametric Study.
ASCE J. Struct. Eng., Vol. 134, No. 5, pp. 692-701.

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

87

System originally developed by Prof. Povov with

Takanashi &
Roeder
1976
Roeder
1977
Malley
1983

Kasai
1986
Ricles
1987
Engelhardt
1989
+ others
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

88

44

Design Bracing Configuration


e

= p L/e

V
e

V
Pinned
connection
(typ.)

V=2M/e

= p L/e

Rigid
connection
(typ.)

Symmetrical
Pf 0 in ductile links
Pinned beam-tocolumn joints
Shorter beam spans
Good clearance

L
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

89

Design Link Beams


Resistance can be governed by shear (short links) or
flexure (long links). Resistances affected by axial load:

Section must meet hd (md for flanges if e < 1.6 Mp/Vp )


e > d; upper limit on e applies in presence of axial load
Must meet limits on plastic rotation (p): from 0.02 rad
for e < 1.6 Mp/Vp to 0.08 rad for e > 2.6 Mp/Vp
Need for end and intermediate stiffeners; depend on
yielding mechanism & p
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

90

45

For center links (M = 0 at e/2):


For shear yielding: Vn = Vp
For flexural yielding: Vn = 2 Mp/e

e/2

e/2

VL

ML
ML
VL
ML

Shorter links generally preferred:


Higher lateral frame stiffness
Higher energy dissipation capacity
Less stringent (md for flanges)
Easier to design beams outside links

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

p
hs

p= p L/e

p
hs

91

p= p L/e

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

92

46

Design Adjusted link shear strength


Vadj = 1.25 RyVn (I-shaped links)
= 1.40 RyVn (built-up tubular links)
May be multiplied by 0.88 for beams outside links
and for columns in structures more than 3 storeys

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

93

Design Columns and Beams


Must resist gravity loads plus Vadj
Column sections must meet hd. Beam outside links
and braces must meet md section requirements
L/2
e/2
e/2

L/2- e/2

Vadj

adj

Vadj

Pbrace

Pbeam
Vadj
Vbeam
Vadj

Mbeam
P col
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

94

47

Design Columns and Beams


Must resist gravity loads plus Vadj
Column sections must meet hd. Beam outside links
and braces must meet md section requirements
L/2
e/2
L/2- e/2

e/2
Vadj

adj

Vadj

Pbrace

Pbeam
Vadj
Vbeam
Vadj

Mbeam
P col
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

95

5 @ 9000 = 45 000
300
(slab edge)

BF (typ.)

EBF

BRBF

8 @ 4000 = 32 000

MRF (typ.)

5 @ 9000 = 45 000

SCBF

5500

PLAN
Gravity loads:
Roof: Dead = 3.2 kPa
Live = 1.0 kPa
Floor: Dead = 3.5 kPa
Partitions = 1.0 kPa
Live = 3.8 kPa
Exterior walls = 1.5 kPa
Seismic Load Data (NCh433):
Zone 2
Soil Type C
A= 0.30 g
In-plane torsion omitted

[mm]

ELEVATIONS

[mm]

Load Combinations:
1.2D + 1.6L
1.2D + 1.0L + 1.4E
0.9D + 1.4E
Seismic weight:
P = 7720 kN (Level 9)
12635 kN (Levels 2-8)
12840 kN (Level 1)
Steel:
BRB cores: Fyc = 260-290 MPa
Other members: Fy = 345 MPa

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

96

48

EBFs Modular Links


with N. Mansour & C. Christopoulos, Univ. of Toronto

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

97

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

98

49

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

99

100

50

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

101

102

51

Repair using Self-compacting concrete


(Sikacrete-08 SCC)
Repair of main transverse surface
cracks using Low-viscosity injection
resin (Sikadur 52)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

103

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

104

52

Comparisons for cycles at 0.08 rad.:

( reinforcement plates)
(3/16 reinforcement plates)

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

105

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

106

53

Buckling Restrained Braced Frames


Energy dissipated in bracing members through
tensile and compression axial yielding
Unbonding
Material

Steel
Tube

Steel
Core

Mortar
Fill
Cross-Section

P
P

Connections and other members expected to


remain essentially elastic
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

107

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

108

Wakabayashi et al. (1973)

Watanabe et al. (1988)

54

Buckling Restrained Braced Frames


1.5

V / Vy

1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-4.0

cole Polytechnique 1998

-2.0

0.0

/ y

2.0

4.0

Qubec City (1999)


R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

109

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

110

55

Vancouver (RJC)

Qubec City (1999)


Montreal (Canam)

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

111

20000

Roof / hn

0.8
0.4
0.0
-0.4
-0.8
0.8
0.4
0.0
-0.4
-0.8

V Base (kN)

Roof / hn

0.8
0.4
0.0
-0.4
-0.8

Roof / hn

CBF

CBF

10000
0
-10000

20000

BRB-L
V Base (kN)

BRB-L
10000
0
-10000

BRB-S
-20000
.

20000
BRB-S

V Base (kN)

Accel. (g)

-20000

0.2
0.0

10000
0
-10000

-0.2
-20000
0

10

15

Time (s)

20

25

-1.0

0.0

1/ hs (%)

1.0

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

112

56

Global buckling:
Concrete Fill

EIr , dr
P

P
a0

Core
L

Local (core) buckling:

Gap

P
P

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

113

All-steel BRBs

2.0

V/Vy

1.0

0.0

-1.0

-2.0
-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

10

114

57

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

Eryasar & Topkaya 2010

115

Usami et al. 2008

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

116

58

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

117

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

118

59

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

119

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

120

60

Specialized suppliers (U.S.)

http://www.corebrace.com/

http://www.starseismic.net/

http://www.unbondedbrace.com/
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

121

Design Bracing Configuration


No special requirements (BRB have nearly symmetrical
response)
May be controlled by drift limit or available BRB
capacities

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

122

61

Design BRB members


Select Ac:
BRB assumed not resist gravity loads
=> required axial strength from lateral loads only
Pn = AcFyc (compression & tension) with = 0.9
Notes: use lower bound for Fyc
round-off Ac

Verify availability of BRB and test data


Determine stiffness factor KF for analysis
= KBrace / (EAc/Lc/c)

21
60
00
45

+/

123

4000

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

41.6

9000

Lc/c

Lc

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

124

62

Qualification tests of BRBs:


Two cyclic tests: individual BRB + sub-assemblage
Specimen Pysc within 50-120% of prototype
Specimen design, fabrication and quality control as for
prototype
Test displacements based on design storey drift bm

Tests used to demonstrate performance of the member


and connections and to provide design data
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

125

Design BRB adjusted axial strength


Adjusted (max) brace strengths from tests:
Tadj = AcFyc
Cadj = AcFyc
with and from C and T at the maximum test
deformations
Note: use upper bound for Fyc
2.0

Tmax

P / Py

1.0
0.0
-1.0
Cmax

-2.0
-8.0

-4.0

0.0

4.0

8.0

y
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

126

63

Design Columns and Beams


Must resist gravity loads plus forces induced when
the braces reach their adjusted strengths
Section must meet hd (md for flanges if e < 1.6 Mp/Vp )

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

127

Beam Design
Column Design

C adjx+1

Tadj,x
FL,x

FR,x
Tadj,x

Tadj

Cadj

C adj,x

C adjx+1

Tadj,x
FL,x

FR,x
Cu

Chevron
BRB

C adj
C adj
C adj

Tu

0.9 w D

Cu

Tu
Tadj,x

C adj,x

and
1.2 w D+ 1.6 w L

C adj

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

128

64

Communication with BRB suppliers


At design stage, verify:
Range of Fyc
Strength factors &
Stiffness factors KF
Py range for which test data is available
On drawings, specify:
Minimum Py (or Ac & Fyc), with tolerances
Factors , and KF
Reqd test brace axial deformations

Fyc = 260-290 MPa


KF = 1.5

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

129

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

130

BRBF

R = 6.0 (as EBF)


T = 0.99 s
Q0 = 871 kN / Frame

65

SCBF

BRBF

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

131

Moment Resisting Frames


Energy dissipated by plastic hinging in beams
and limited shear yielding in column panel
zones. Plastic hinging in columns permitted at
the base and in single-storey structures.

Connections and other members expected to


remain essentially elastic
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

132

66

Design Beams
Section must meet hd
Must resist expected shear demand upon hinging
Must be laterally braced

L
pb
1.1 R y Mpb

1.1 Ry M pb

Vh

Vh
L'
L' = L - 2 x - d c

Vh = wL' / 2 + 2.2 R y Mpb / L'

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

133

Design Columns
Section must meet hd
Must satisfy weak beam-strong column criteria
except for:
Columns with Puc < 0.3 AcFy in single-storey buildings or
at the top storey of multi-storey buildings;
Columns with Puc < 0.3 AcFy when their total shear
contribution < 20% of total storey shear resistance and
33% of storey shear resistance along their MF line; or
Columns that have shear capacity to demand ratio 50%
gretaer than in the storey above.

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

134

67

Weak beam-strong column criteria:

M*: projected at member


center lines

Cf, i+1

w
1.1 Ry Mpb

w
Vh

M'rc, i+1
1.1 Ry M pb

1.1 Ry M pb

Vh

Vh

1.1 Ry M pb
Vh

M'rc, i

L'

Cf, i
L' = L - 2 x - d c

x + dc /2

x + d c/2

Vh = wL' / 2 + 2.2 R y Mpb / L'

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

135

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

136

Design Column panel zone


Must meet: t > (dz + wz)/90
Shear strength, Rn:

Vh

1.1 Ry Mpb

1.1 Ry Mpb

Vh

x + d c/2

x + dc /2

68

Design Beam-to-column connections


Must accommodate 4% storey drift angle
Measured flexural resistance at column face at 4%
storey drift angle > 80% Mpb
Performance considered as demonstrated if prequalified connections are used; otherwise must be
demonstrated through physical cyclic testing

V
hs/2
hs/2
L/2

L/2
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

137

Design requirements
Welding requirements
Bolting requirements
Requirements for 6
pre-qualified connections

http://www.aisc.org
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

138

69

Reduced Beam Section

Bolted Flange Plate

Welded Unreinforced Flange


Welded Web

Bolted End Plate

Conxtech Conxl

Kaiser Bolted Bracket


R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

139

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

140

70

MRF
Example

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

141

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

142

71

At Level 1:

M*pb = 656 + 738 = 1394 kN-m

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

143

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

144

72

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

145

Steel Plate Shear Walls


Energy dissipated through web plate (infill panel)
yielding and plastic hinging in beams and at the
base of columns

Connections and other members expected to


remain essentially elastic
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

146

73

ING St-Hyacinthe
Quirion Metal

Louis Crpeault
Groupe Technika

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

147

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

148

74

University of Alberta (1997)

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

149

5000
4000

2F Shear Force (kN)

3000
2000
1000
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

1.5

2.5

Interstory Drift (% )
5000
4000

Base Shear Force (kN)

3000
2000
1000
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-2

Work by Bruneau, Tsai et al.

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0.5

Interstory Drift (% )

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

150

75

MF + web plate

Vmf

=
Vw

Distribution of Vx from analysis


Infill panel designed for 100% Vx
Beams Mpb such that VMF = 2 Mpb/hs > 0.25 Vx
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

151

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

152

Design of web plate

76

Design of beams (HBE)


and columns (VBE)

qi

i+1

V bl,i

(T sin ) i+1

(T cos )i+1

M' pb,i

C b,i

C b,i
(T cos ) i

M'pb,i
V br,i

Cb,i

Vbr,i

h i+1
Fr,i

M'pb,i
(T sin ) i

hi

L - 2 x - dc
Ti = t w,i Fy

x + dc /2
2

C b,i = [ (T h sin )

i+1

+ (T h sin ) ] / 2
i

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

153

Beam-to-Column Connections

Type LD MRF
CP groove welds
Backing bar removed
Run-off tabs removed
Reinforcing fillet welds
Tr = 60% Tr in Cl. 21.3

qi
Vbl,i

i+1

M'pbl,i

i+1
Pbr,i

bl,i

M'pbr,i
V br,i

Beams:
Class 1 or 2

L - 2 x - dc
Beam

Columns:
Class 1, W Shapes

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

154

77

Corner cut-outs

Purba, R. and Bruneau, M. 2007.


Design Recommendations for
Perforated Steel Plate Shear
Walls. Report MCEER-07-0011,
SUNY Buffalo, NY.
Vian, D. and Bruneau, M. 2004. Testing of Special
LYS Steel Plate Shear walls. Proc. 13th WCEE,
Vancouver, BC. Paper No. 978.
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

155

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

156

Optimization of infill plates


Use of thin infill plates

0.9 mm thick ASTM A1008 (cold-rolled, carbon, commercial


steel sheet)
Berman, J.W. and Bruneau, M. 2005. Experimental
Investigation of Light-Gauge Steel Plate Shear
Walls. ASCE J. of Struct. Eng., 131, 2, 259-267.

78

Perforated infill plates

Purba, R. and Bruneau, M. 2007. Design


Recommendations for Perforated Steel
Plate Shear Walls. Report MCEER-07-0011,
SUNY Buffalo, NY.

Vian, D. and Bruneau, M. 2004. Testing of Special


LYS Steel Plate Shear walls. Proc. 13th WCEE,
Vancouver, BC. Paper No. 978.
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

157

Perforation
(typ.)
45o

45o

> 4 rows

V
> 4 rows

ia
g

Li
Sd

D
S

D / Sdiag > 0.6

di
ag

D < * < D + 0.7 Sdiag

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

158

79

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

159

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

160

80

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

161

Warning!
Only basic design requirements have been
discussed; several other requirements must be
applied including those related to loads and
load combinations, demand critical welds,
protected zones, bracing, quality control, etc.
Only the systems designed and detailed for
high ductility have been introduced; provisions
also exist for other systems exhibiting
moderate and limited ductility that may be more
appropriate for some applications.
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal

162

81

Bruneau, M., Sabelli, R., and Uang C.-M.


(2003) Ductile Design of Steel Structures, 2nd
ed., Wiley

AISC. (2013) Seismic Design Manual, 2nd ed.,


AISC

Filiatrault, A., Tremblay, R., Christopoulos,


C., Foltz, B., and Pettinga, D. (2013)
Elements of Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 3rd ed.,
Presses Internationales Polytechnique (PIP)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal

163

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

164

82

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

165

Seismic Design of Heavy Industrial


Buildings : Challenges

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

166

83

Observations / Issues:
Structures are not buildings:
Irregular structures with heavy point masses and loads
and low damping
Design is process driven and structure will likely be
modified to accommodate changes to the process
Equipment may interact with the structure

Structures may have limited redundancy


Damage under severe earthquakes must be limited:
Structures may contain hazardous material
No or short downtimes
Application of ductile seismic systems not practical,
often impossible
Current building code provisions not suitable
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

167

Possible avenues:
Ductility (or alternative similar approach) needed to accommodate
uncertainty in ground motions and seismic response

1. Simple code provisions to control inelastic demand:


low R factors , use of dynamic analysis, etc.
2. Use of ductile anchorage systems with minimum
stretch lengths in combination with shear keys
3. Use ductile fuses in key structural elements to
control the force demand
4. Where applicable, use sliding or rocking systems to
control input
Above avenues are listed in order of ease of implementation
implementation and flexibility for future process changes;
however, the latest ones could be more effective
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

168

84

In Canada, industrial structures are buildings and National


Building Code (NBCC) applies.
New Annex proposed for inclusion in CSA S16-14 and which
would be referenced in NBCC 2015:

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

169

Recent related research work:


1.
2.
3.
4.

Demand prediction from RS analysis


Use/design of ductile anchorage
Ductile structural fuses
Multi-tiered braced frames

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

170

85

Demand Prediction from RS Analysis

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

171

Plan dimensions: 36 m x 60 m x 40 m
Heavy equipment, including 1200t & 750t tanks
Irregularities in mass and stiffness
Montreal Site Class C
Static, Response Spectrum & Linear response history
analyses

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

172

86

Structure has a large number of contributing modes

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

140

STAT-CNBC
STAT-ASCE
SPECTRALE
TH-MDIANE
TH-84e CEN

120
Displacement (mm)

173

100
80
60
40
20
0
Level

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

174

87

Use & Design of Ductile Anchors

22 400

16 800

5600

2 x 40t cranes

3 sites: Montreal, Vancouver & Seattle


25 000

1675

Seismic force demand from linear


response history analysis

1675

Ductile anchors at column bases

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

175

P/R yPy 1.2


1.0

Strength ( = -1)
Strength ( = 1)

0.8
0.6
0.4
Stability ( = 1)

0.2

Stability ( = -1)
0.0
-0.2

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2
M/R yM p

-0.4
-0.6

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

176

88

Elastic time history analysis

SPEC TH-MedTH-84th

SPEC TH-MedTH-84th

Analysis method

Stress Ratio (%)

149%
120%

115%
102%

Ext. base col.


Top column

150%

0.4

50%

156%
93%

n.a.

115%
76%

100%

0.2
0.0

STAT

200%

142%
86%

0.0%

0.6

Crane level
Roof level

160%
94%

0.2%

)
0.8

Stress Ratio (%)

0.4%

Acceleration (g)

0.6%

1.00%
0.91%
0.88%
0.79%
0.78%
0.70%
1.01%
0.93%

c/h , r/h (%)

0.8%

SPEC TH-Med TH-84th

Analysis method

1.0%

SPEC TH-Med TH-84th

Analysis method

Seattle (Site Class D)


Crane level
Roof level

STAT

0%
STAT

Analysis method

1.2%

0.51
0.52

n.a.

121%
106%

0.0
STAT

50%

120%
107%

0.0%

0.2

0.57
0.72

0.2%

Ext. base col.


Top column

100%

0.4

0.37
0.42

0.4%

150%
Crane level
Roof level

0.44
0.52

0.6%

0.6

0.44
0.42

Crane level
Roof level

0.46
0.53

0.8%

0.71%
0.67%
0.70%
0.66%
0.67%
0.63%
0.87%
0.81%

c/h , r/h (%)

1.0%

Acceleration (g)

Vancouver (Site Class C)

STAT

SPEC TH-Med TH-84th

0%

STAT

SPEC TH-Med TH-84th

Analysis method

Analysis method

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

177

Ductile anchorage at column bases

total =e +i

A fuse

Fvertical
Rsh Fy , fuse

e =total/R
i =total/(1 R)
i = xH/h

total =e +i
e =total/R
i =total/(1 R)

=i xh/H
L=/ =/0.03

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

178

89

Inelastic time history analysis

1
4

Spring for stability of


analysis

Anchor rod

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

179

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

180

90

Crane level
Roof level

1.5%

1.14%
1.14%

1.77%
1.77%

0.5%

1.56%
1.38%

1.0%

1.40%
1.24%

c/h , r/h (%)

2.0%

TH-MD

TH-84e CEN

TH-MD

TH-84e CEN

0.0%
With anchor
yielding

Without anchor
yielding

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

181

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

182

NCh2369 (2003)

Is 8db or 250
mm suitable for
all applications?

91

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

183

Other buildings to be examined


Chemical Industry

HeadFrame (Mining)

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

184

92

Pipe Racks

Conveyor Towers

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

185

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

186

Tank Supporting Structures

93

Ductile
Structural
Fuses

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

187

1.5
Brace Fuse Test 3CT
Without Fuse
With Fuse

25.4 bolts
@ 80x80 (typ.)

280

PL 6x63x250
(2 sides)

40
(typ.)

V / Vy

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

200

64 hole
(4 sides)

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

/ h (%)

1.0

2.0

3.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

1.5
Brace Fuse Test 4CT
Without Fuse
With Fuse

133
200

64 x 335 slotted hole


(4 sides)

V / Vy

1.0

0.5

271

133
0.0

HS 102x102x4.8

-0.5
-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

/ h (%)

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

188

94

Fuses for
HSS braces

Tu
Tf

Cf

Cu

LF

P
TuF
Tf

Cf

Cu

Lc
A

C/T

Tu
Tf

C/T

Cf
Steel Tube

Steel Core

Cu

Mortar Fill
Section A

LF

P
T

TuF
Tf

Cf

CuF

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

189

/ hn (%)

Without Brace Fuses


With Brace Fuses
1.0
0.0
-1.0

ag (g)

0.2
0

M7.0 1989 Loma Prieta


Standford Univ. 360o

-0.2

10

15

20

Time (s)
0.5

1.0

V NBCC

V/W

P / Tu

0.5

0.0

0.0
V NBCC

-0.5

Without Brace Fuses


With Brace Fuses
-0.5

-1.0
-2.0

-1.0

0.0

/ y

1.0

2.0

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

B / h n (%)

0.5

1.0

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

190

95

Angle with
reduced section
HSS brace

Buckling
restraining box

Cut in
HSS

A
bf

Lf

3.75 m

W360x347 (typ.)

Frame support
(typ.)
Loading
arm
W310x179 (typ.)

Typ.

Lt Lw

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

191

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

192

1000 kN
Dynamic
actuator
Pin
(typ.)
Brace
fuse

Brace
studied
Pin
(typ.)
Horizontal
reaction block
6.0 m

96

1.5
Brace Fuse Test 5CC
Without Fuse
With Fuse

25.4 bolts
@ 80x80 (typ.)

280

PL 6x63x250
(2 sides)

40
(typ.)

V / Vy

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5
-3.0

5-6

Cut

-1.0

0.0

/ h (%)

1.0

2.0

3.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

1.5
Brace Fuse Test 6CT
Without Fuse
With Fuse

1034

V / Vy

1.0

Brace
Fuse

-2.0

280

0.5

0.0

-0.5
-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

/ h (%)

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

193

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

194

97

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

195

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

196

Fuses in W-Shapes
(Canam Group, Montreal)

98

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

197

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

198

99

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

1.2

1.2

Tu

Tu

0.8

0.8

0.4

Design

P / AFy

P / AFy

0.4

199

0.0

Design
0.0

Design

-0.4

-0.4

Design
Cu

Cu

-0.8

-0.8

Test 1 - LF/LH = 0.11

-1.2
-5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0

0.0

/ hs

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Test 3 - LF/LH = 0.07


-1.2
-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

/ hs

1.0

2.0

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

3.0

200

100

Multi-Tiered Braced Frames

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

201

X-braced CBF vs Multi-tiered CBFs


Drift (% hn )

1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00

= 4.2

-0.50
-1.00
-1.50

Drift at h = 10.0 m
Drift at h = 6.8 m

Drift (% hn )

1.50
1.00
0.50

= 6.8

0.00
-0.50
-1.00

= 1.6

-1.50

Accel. (g)

1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

Time (s)

15.0

20.0
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

202

101

2-tiered CBFs
Designed in accordance with AISC 341-10
SCBF R = 6.0
Los Angeles, CA - Site class D

Braces: HSS 102x102x6.4


Columns: W310x174
Strut: W250x58
Design Storey Drift (Cd/H) = 0.86% < 2%

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

203

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

204

102

Design Storey (Cd)

1
H2

Mc1
Vc2

Tu2 C
u2
2

Vc1
Mc1
H1

Vc2
1

Cu1

Vc2

Mc1

Tu1

M c1

Vc1
Mc1
Vc1
Vc

Frame Lateral
Deformation

Member Forces
(axial loads in columns not shown)

Mc

Column Shear &


Bending Moment

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

205

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

206

103

Conclusions
Design provisions to achieve ductile seismic
performance for building steel structures are
now available for application in practice
Design objective is to prevent structural
collapse and structural damage & residual
deformations are expected
Some issues still need to be addressed
Application of this design approach not
suitable for heavy industrial applications;
specific design provisions needed for these
structures
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

207

104