You are on page 1of 180

***

ISSN 1018-5593
* *
* *
* *
***

European Commission

Γ Γ r f ¡

L
f
rrc-ry ry; r> r; γ·ύ~ .-y r*. rv r~. ν
ί rf
I ι

· ιA
ι ¡

LA. 1/ ι

_ L.
ί Ι Ι r-N Ι / i .· ι Ì i ι ί ! ! 1 r

Properties and service performance

Serviceability deflections and displacements
in steel-framed structures

f(

Report
hi
EUR 15819 en STEEL RESEARCH

European Commission

Properties and service performance

Serviceability deflections and displacements
in steel-framed structures
C. Bijl(\E Bijaard<2), R. Zandonini (3), D. Nethercot (4)
-'Centrum Staal
Groothandelsgebouw A-4
Stationsplein 45
Postbus 29076
3001 GB Rotterdam
The Netherlands
»TNO Bouw
Lange Kleiweg 5
Rijswijk
Postbus 49
2600 AA Delft
The Netherlands
,3> Università di Trento - Fac. Ingegneria
Via Mesiano 77
I-38050 Trento
Italy
w University of Nottingham
Nottingham NG2 7RD
United Kingdom

Contract No 7210-SA/612

1 July 1990 to 31 December 1992

Final report

Directorate-General
Science, Research and Development
1997 EUR 15819 en

eu. It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa. 1997 Reproduction is authorized. 1997 ISBN 92-828-0167-5 © European Communities.LEGAL NOTICE Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. provided the source is acknowledged Printed in Luxembourg .int) Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

.2 Lateral movements 38 4.3 Deformation types 10 1.4 Numerical analyses related to serviceability 17 2....1 Review of previous studies r.6 Literature review on full-scale testing 22 2..2 Precast concrete cladding 46 5.3 Brickwork 46 .. Contents 1 General aspects 8 1.4 Reliability 10 2 Review of related studies and existing tests 11 2.4 Ponding ·.2 Conclusions 34 References 35 4 Serviceabil itv problems in existing steel-fra med buildings 36 4....3 Economic aspects.8 Summary 24 References 24 3 Existing code requirements and design practices 28 3..3 Differential settlement 38 4.2 Load levels and combinations 9 1.7 Site measurements ...5 Effects of cladding on deflection limits 20 2. 40 4.1 Serviceability limit states in current codes 28 3.1 General studies on serviceability 11 2. 23 2. 36 4.1 Serviceability limits 8 1..1 Connections and details 45 5.. .. 16 2.2 Loads to be considered 16 2.5 Serviceability survey 40 4.6 Conclusions 43 References 43 5 Non-structural components of steel framed buildings 44 5.

.4 Cinder blocks and clay tiles ^3 5.. 154 9 Summary of the major findings ¿.3 Dynamic model predictions 120 7.7 Theoretical principles behind building measurements 133 References 138 8 Evaluation of the actual structural behaviour at service load level of full-scale structures by in situ dynamic tests 139 8...9 Sandwich panels 63 5.8 Profiled steel sheeting 63 5. .4 Comparisons 150 8.1 Numerical study 69 6.6 Conclusions 106 References 107 7 Testing and analysis of a full-scale steel framed building 109 7..2 Static model predictions 118 7.4 Summary of model predictions 121 7.3 Joint action and frame performance in service *^4 6... .5 Modelling of cladding action and cladding action on the considered frames 98 6..2 Numerical models and results .5.··· 152 References .2 Measured in-service behaviour of steel framed buildings 155 9.4 Cladding action 91 6..1 Modelling of a two storey steel-framed office building . 155 9.1 Structures investigated 139 8.3 Physical tests 147 8..7 Glass curtain walls 62 5. 68 6.~ 109 7..10 Conclusions 64 References 66 6 Structural modelling and calculation methods at serviceability load levels .2 Joint action and frame response 71 6.3 Design models at serviceability load levels 157 .5 Stonework 54 5.5 Conclusions ..6 Wood framed diaphragms $4 5. 143 8.. 1 Design codes and serviceability problems in steel-framed buildings 155 9.5 Testing of two-storey steel framed office building 121 7.6 Comparison of test results and model predictions 131 7.

10 Conclusions and recommendations 160 10.1 Recommendations 160 11 Literature list for all related references 162 .

.

general custom and practice within the industry and from manu¬ facturers requirements. Determination of frame deflections by different methods of calculation. 2. However. 3. The performance in service. automati¬ cally takes account of all available components providing rigidity to the frame. it was agreed that one member would take lhe lead on each of these three topics of follows. The research project deals with the behaviour of steel framed structures for multi¬ storey and industrial buildings in particular the deflections and displacements under serviceability loading conditions. and recognises real constraints or acceptable limits of deformation. the identification of the most appropriate parameters to be checked and the definition of the most appropriate design procedure. Identification of presently used design limits for serviceability deflections from codes of practice. taking account of the effects of such deformations on the performance of the complete structure? What form of simplified design calculations are appropriate as a means of conduct- ing a quantitative check that satisfactory in-service performance will result? Three main tasks for the technical aspects of the work have been identified: 1. This also means a criti¬ cal review of the traditional approaches to serviceability. The expected results of the work is to provide answers to two fundamental questions: What levels of in-service deformation are appropriate for various key components in steel framed buildings. Task 1: University of Nottingham (contract 7210-SA/828) Task 2: Università di Trento (contract 7210-SA/418) Task 3: TNO Building & Construction Research (contract 7210-SA/613) Coordination and secretary: Centrum Staal (contract 7210-SA/612) . to the performance actually observed in service. All the parties will be involved in the different aspects of the study. including supporting evidence for particular limits where this is available.Introduction The aim of the project is to match simplified design calculation methods to determine the deflections and displacements of framed structures at serviceability load levels. Evidence from on-site measurements and large scale tests of deflection levels ob¬ served in structural assemblies.

3.1 Serviceability limits Although several different serviceability checks should. joints. attention has been focused more clearly on the different performance re¬ quirements that must be satisfied. the actual guidance provided is much less detailed. 4. be conducted for all types of steel structure. Thus it does not address behaviour under dynamic loads and the par¬ ticular issues of vibration. walls. this investigation concentrates on the particular require- ments'. 5 and 6 of this report. despite the fact that modem trends towards lighter and more open forms of construc¬ tion are likely to mean that serviceability considerations will increasingly control the design. However. excitation and resonance. Eurocode 3. these documents also set out the designers obligation to ensure satisfactory performance at working load levels . in principle. Little sci¬ entific evidence exists of either the levels of deflection that could safely be permitted in different forms of construction without impairing their everyday performance or of the actual deformations experienced by real structures for which complex interactions be¬ tween frames. floors.g. Whilst much of the material of recently produced design codes and standards e. Nor does it deal with other serviceability requirements such as resistance to deterioration through corrosion or fatigue damage. natural frequency.1 General aspects With the adoption throughout Europe of the limit states basis for the design of steel structures. partitions and foundations mean that calculations for bare frames have little real relevance. Thus the link between the calculations and the codified deflection limits is an empirical one. These embrace not only the review of current codified limits presented in chapter 2 but also evidence of actual in-service performance obtained both from the work of other investigators and from measurements undertaken as part of the present .that static deformations under working load conditions should remam within ac¬ ceptable levels. For steel structures it has been customary to base the serviceability deflection check on a comparison between deflection calculated on a linear elastic basis for a simplified representation of the bare steel frame and sets of limits drawn from experience of the satisfactory performance of previous structures designed on a similar basis. serving merely as an indication (or not) that the structure will not be too flexible. Various aspects of serviceability limits are considered in chapters 2.the so-called serviceability limit state. rather than as a mean of assessing actual in- service behaviour. concentrates on providing assistance with the design for the ultimate limit state. 1.

dead.thereby recognising its variable nature and the need to consider matters such as the design life of the structure and an acceptable risk that an unwanted effect will occur . be evidence that the use of these levels has been correlated against assessments of the true behaviour of the real structure under its actual loading conditions. computing resources etc. Although the subject has for many years been treated on a probabilistic basis . Real loading on structures is. more importantly.implemented increasingly often nowadays by means of commercially produced software mounted on a personal com¬ puter . the parameters necessary to describe them properly in every set of circumstances. wind etc. The widespread use of linear elastic analysis .for the pur¬ poses of design calculations explicit values are required.could ever be faithfully represented by an analysis. the method used in the design process to estimate serviceability deflections. The link between these two rather different types of limits is. imposed.2 Load levels and combinations Similar arguments to those advanced in the previous section concerning deflections apply to the other side of the equation: the loading.means that approaches to deformation checking at serviceability are likely to continue to rely on this method for the calculations well into the future.. That this is the case may be accepted by considering the difficulties associated with first assessing the correct magnitude of each component type e. the level of floor beam deflection for which an unacceptable degree of cracking in the slab was introduced etc. and if the loading used for the calculations correctly repre¬ sented the way in which the actual in-service loading functioned. of course. once again. extremely complex. the overall sway at which connections between the main frame and the curtain walling ceased to function properly. Such an approach to deflection calculations would.and then deciding upon realistic combinations. with the tech¬ niques.e. study. Thus. What is needed. Thus the reality of the situation is that designers must 'make do' with something sim¬ pler. of course. It is also doubtful that all of the structural effects - and. no matter how complex. likely to be readily available to designers for the foreseeable future be impractical. .especially when one considers that each of these will itself have several components . is the setting of limits (for use with different types of unacceptable in-service behaviour that ensure that the real structure will not exceed the performance limits associated with real events that would render it unfit for use. . then the results could be compared with actual performance limits i. 1. If the calculations were to be performed in a way that accurately modelled all of the ef¬ fects present in the real structure that had some influence on its stiffness and thus on the deflection obtained.g. knowing that these have been chosen so that the whole package of calculations will give a result that is satisfac¬ tory in the overall sense. The basis for selection must. however. given the one-off nature of most structural designs . therefore. it is neces¬ sary to associate particular quantities with the design process.

just as for the response side of the equation. Thus they represent spot checks on the structure's ability to re- spond in an acceptable fashion.3 Deformation types The actual pattern of deformation that will be experienced by a steel building during its lifetime will be complex. mat both the load levels and the combinations used reflect in- service rather than ultimate conditions. on the basis of the present study. . Some rather limited.structure properties. of course. 10 . Ideally the three main data items: . when selecting loading arrangements for checking the serviceability conditions. 1. These are normally selected so as to present particular unsatisfactory events e. considered. use should be made of load combinations with an appropriate likeli¬ hood of their being experienced during the life of the structure. 1. Clearly this is unrealistic and a suitably pragmatic approach is required. maximum vertical de¬ flection of a floor beam under uniformly distributed vertical load.g. attention is given to the question of the loading cases that should bê considered when checking serviceability behaviour in chapter 2.loading. The link between these and the sort of deformation that might be experienced in service due to the almost limitless combinations of a loading that might occur during the lifetime of the building is. Traditionally serviceability checks in design consider only particular forms under an associated idealised loading case e. From the forgoing qualitative consideration of the treatment of serviceability deflections this would appear to be especially significant for that topic. It is suspected that.4 Reliability Clearly uncertainty plays a large role in all aspects of the prediction of structural be¬ haviour and its links to true behaviour.g.g. It is also necessary to be careful. however. To do this properly would.limits should all be based on probabilistic concepts as each should reflect the variability of the subject e. far more attention has been directed to the collection. analysis and rep¬ resentation of data for me ultimate limit state. somewhat difficult to make. require enormous volumes of data item to be available. local damage to non¬ structural partitions. . This forms part of the review of codified or similar material presently available on the subject The paral¬ lel aspect of actual in-service loading experienced by various forms of steel building is not.

Review of related studies and existing tests This chapter reviews previous work on serviceability problems and the existing test data (at service load levels). see figure 2. 1980) recommends the fol¬ lowing for the effects of static deformations and their allowable values: . Requirements for deflections (CISTI. CISTI. Also numerical analyses are reviewed together with the techniques used to determine the characteristics influencing serviceability.1 General studies on serviceability What follows are the findings of a literature survey examining previous works under¬ taken in this field by Associations. Requirements depend on each individual situation and there is no general rule. 2.1.. 1. As a recommendation for beams or floors supported on two or more ends. The needs arising from this subjective aspect can largely be satisfied by con¬ forming to the requirements that Z^/L < 250 (L is the span in question. any rotation occurring at the 'fixed-end' should be taken into account deflection (ultimate value = δ«0 camber Zg Sag (ultimate value = Z^ ) ' Unloaded (including no self weight) loaded (including creep) 2. The use aspect: this is to ensure permanent serviceability of the floor structure. ZM is the actual sag in the final state).The subjective aspect: becomes more significant if the deformations become visi¬ ble. the following limitations were suggested: 11 . . translated into English (Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information. 1980). The code requires that when calculating Z«. research groups and individuals: A Dutch document on serviceability requirements. The construction aspect static deformations in the floor and roof of structures may give rise to cracking or other damage in members which are supported by these structures (a typical example is the cracking in partitions).Water accumulation (on roofs): it can be prevented by judiciously determining the point of water discharge.

as in (a). L = span parallel to the partition wall 2¿jrj = additional deflection occurring after installation (hardening) of the wall The maximum rotation (due to static loading and special influence) is suggested to be: wi<0max< 300 5O0 Other recommendations were also made concerning the dynamic effects on buildings and structural components.identifying areas where sufficient data appear to exist . In Australia a survey was conducted into the deflection limits of portal frames (Woolcock and Kitipornchai.1. no gantry cranes b. b Farmsheds 100 '100 12 . b relatíve deflection between buildings internal partitions against external 150 '200 adjacent fiâmes walls or columns. and would indicate that this issue is not clearly understood by many engi¬ neers. A questionnaire on specific items was sent to in¬ dividual designers and organisations. inceillings. The result of the survey is summarised in table 2. The authors of the report suggested mat good understanding of the behaviour of the individual components in a structure is essential for an adequate assessment of the de¬ formations that occur in the structure as a whole.h may be taken at crane level 250 '250 . 1986). ASCE. 1986). Recommended lateral deflection limit (Woolcock and Kitipornchai. andaiso OarJd < 10 to 20 mm where. Table 2. η^< 500 to 600. but with external masonry h b walls supported by steelwork 250 ' 200 ij h . as in (a). no h . and table 2. An Ad Hoc committee produced a report establishing structural serviceability research needs (Ad Hoc Committee on serviceability Research. Type of building Limits Comments Industrial a. The committee had the responsibility for: .identifying the areas where additional research is necessary. but with gantry h b .2 for rafter deflection limits. One feature about the survey is the diversity of the engineer's opinions oh many aspects of ser¬ viceability. 1986). steel sheeted walls.1 for lateral deflection limits.defining the serviceability problem and its scope on contemporary construction .h/300 should be used for heavy cranes c.

Table 2.2. Recommended rafter deflection limit (Woolcock and Kitipornchai, 1986).
Type of building and load Limits Comments
Industrial a. dead load L forroofpiteh>3°
buildings 360
L for roof pitch < 3% but check for ponding or insufficient
500 roof slope
b. live load L check spread of columns if gantry crane present
240 if no ceiling
L
250
c. wind load L
250
Farmsheds a. dead load L check for ponding if roof pitch <3°
240
b. live load L
180
c. wind load L
100

A study was undertaken in New Zealand by the Building Research Association
(Branz) on serviceability criteria for buildings (Cooney and King, 1988). Tables 2.1
and 2.2 give some examples for the limiting deflection values of horizontal and vertical
components respectively. Covered in the report are different aspects of deformations
such as deflections due to loads, thermal expansion, environmental and dynamic ef¬
fects. Tables 2.3 and 2.4 give the reason for limiting deformations as well as the load
combination. As stated by the authors, the deflection components being assessed
should be related to me assumptions made with respect to:
- the section modulus
- changes in section (e.g. composite sections)
- loading assumptions (intensity and distribution)
- duration of load
- flexibility of the support
- environment effects
- shear distortions.

For example in concrete structures the outcome of the analysis will be strongly influ¬
enced by the section modulus.
A state-of-the-art survey of the design for drift of steel framed buildings has been un¬
dertaken by the ASCE Committee on Design of Steel Building Structures (Galambos
and Ellingwood, 1986). This was accomplished by means of a survey of structural
engineering consultants (35 responses were received). Some of the results of this sur¬
vey, which pertain to this report, are listed below:
- More information is needed to define acceptable drift limits for human occupancy
and for the structural acceptability of curtain wall systems.
- Codes should indicate levels of quality. Perhaps an upper bound of lateral drift
should be specified.

13

Inter-storey drift limits currently used by engineers vary between 1/600 and 1/200.
Drift should be codified because it is ignored by so many engineers.
Drift limits are meaningless if the limitations between drift and damage for common
cladding materials and partitions types are not defined.
Different building types should have different drift limits.
Many engineers believe that different drift ratios should be used for different
cladding types. This is rejected by the working group because the contribution of
the same cladding types is highly dependent upon connection type, location and
number.
It is meaningless to codify a set of drift values if it is not applied using consistent
methods for calculating drift. No component of deflection should be ignored if it
has a significant contribution to the total

Table 2.3. Examples of limiting deflection values for horizontal components (Cooney and King,
1988).

Reasons for limit¬ Deflection limi¬ Load combina¬
ing deflections tations tion Examples and comments
water accumulation S 1 D (allow for
(ponding) on roofs L<250 creep) plus
etc. for beams paral¬ rainwater or
lel to line of snow melt
roof slope
beams that support δ 1 D+Lor D+S - reinforced concrete or steel beams support¬
surfaces which L<250 ing slabs
should drain water δ 1 D+Lor D+S - trafikable deck supported by timber beams
L<350 - non-traflicable deck supported by timber
δ 1
D or D+S beams (always check that water flows as de¬
L<600 signed)
L = live load; D = dead load; S = snow load
differential settle¬ L - beams supported masonry walls
ment 100 - beams supporting walls other than masonry

Table 2.4. Examples of limiting deflection values for vertical components (Cooney and King, 1988).

Reasons for limit¬ Deflection limitations Load combina¬
ing deflections tion Examples and comments
sway of columns δ 1 D+W applies especially to
due to wind h<500 multi-storey buildings
and per storey: δ < 4 mm D -dead load
W = wind load
frame deflection due j horizontal deflection at eaves W W = wind load
to wind and earth¬
quake
δ frame spacing
L< 200 ' -;
and in end bay: δ < 40 mm
differential settle- J 8 1 - masonry
ment h 300
1

δι - other materials
1 h < 150

14

In the U.S codes the vertical deflections were seen to vary in the range L/360 to L/180
depending on the Standard used (in the USA each State has it own Standards) and on
the properties of the roof and floor of the structure.

A working programme was established 'to provide information relevant to the struc¬
tural serviceability of buildings with special attention to structural design' (Holicky and
Deak, 1989). For that purpose four sub-groups were formed with the following tasks:
- serviceability requirements
- design concepts
- deformation of floors and roofs
- floor vibration

A state-of-the-art document corresponding to the findings of the four sub-groups is
due to appear during 1993.
An IABSE seminar was held on the subject of serviceability limit states for steel
buildings at Zurich in 1989. The aim of the seminar was to address the following
questions:
- Have all relevant serviceability requirements for common buildings been identified?
- Which basic design principles should be applied to meet the serviceability require¬
ments for buildings?
- How shall the question of responsibility for adequate building performance be
handled?.

The participants in the seminar, coming from ten different countries, confronted the
following aspects of this problem:
- Deflections of continuous beams in steel frames with composite floors of steel and
concrete (Johnson, 1989).
- Limitation of lateral displacements in steel frame design (Golembiewski, 1989) and
(Tschemmernegg, 1989).
- Vibrations in buildings (Sato and Yoshida, 1989), (Yoshida and Sato, 1989),
(Uchida etal., 1989), (Kuhlmann,1989).

Although the outcome of the seminar was promising, the contributors admitted that it
may take a few years before agreement can be reached for the setting of serviceability
design rules.
In modern construction a number of problems associated with limit states related to ex¬
cessive static deformation (deflection, rotation, curvature) can be identified. The fol¬
lowing is a list of some of the most common problems (Galambos and Ellingwood,
1986):
- local damage to non-structural elements (eg. ceilings, partitions, walls, doors and
windows, etc.) due to deflections caused by load, temperature variation, shrinkage
or creep, and moisture changes

15

Care must be taken in considering load combinations for a particular deflection control criterion.all gravity loads (i. The use of adequate materials in the construction. etc.80% of (wind load plus imposed load) . 2. He showed that.deterioration of the structure due to age and use (fatigue) . It must be stated that very often deflections are specified by engineers without a clear definition of the load to be considered nor its duration (creep effect). the func¬ tion of the structure and the controlling effect Gong. noticeable deflections causing distress to occupants .3 Economic aspects Limiting deflections to the right level of serviceability requirements in a structure is an important issue as far as economy is concerned. A related article was published in a seminar on 'serviceability limit states for steel buildings' held in Zurich (Golem- biewski. etc. 2. . the value of h/150 in limiting the lateral deflection of hall structures due to wind.extensive damage of non-structural elements due to excessive natural events (eg. The dead load need normally only be considered where its effects are not already com¬ pensated by the initial camber of the frame. blast or wind. 1991).. The choice of such combinations is often not ob¬ vious and should be worked out carefully depending on the type of element. hurricane.) . and adopted by the Swiss Steel Construction Standard (SIA 161. discomfort due to vibrations (produced by machines. is a hard demand.dead load . tornado. This was the result 16 . 1991): . it may be necessary to consider (SCI. A value of h/100 is sufficient. etc. to a considerable extent. properly connecting the various components of the structure (through efficient bolting and welding).imposed load .wind load . problems as¬ sociated with deformations and deflections in the structure.wind load plus dead load .) One of the main tasks of the construction industry is to ensure that such problems are properly countered and minimised.or short-term).e dead and imposed) .2 Loads to be considered Depending on the circumstances. allowing for thermal expansions by providing sufficient separation be¬ tween deflecting primary structural elements and non-structural components.80% of (wind plus imposed) plus 100% dead load. traffic. 1989). are all factors that will eventually help in reducing. These combinations need to be applied to the most critical combination for the elements which may influence the deflection.

A revised method of analysis of multi-storey infilled frames subjected to lateral load has been developed (Liauw and Lee. The new element is well adapted for the study of structures with both structural and non-structural components. The authors recommended a control¬ ling sway angle of 1/250 in every storey of the building for base frame design. 2. 1989). As stated by Golembiew- ski this difference is in fact significant. The emphasis of this report is on cal¬ culating the ultimate strength of such a structure. should be undertaken. The method was based on the Hardy-Cross moment distribution technique. Tests and modelling were performed for frames with full and partial connection between the in-fill panels and bare steel frame. 1964). The outcome of such a study strongly supports the idea that the emphasis of future re¬ searches should be on the exact definition of the limit state of serviceability. of many years experimental research undertaken in the old GDR which proved that with this limit value of h/100 damage is not to be expected. In this method an equiva¬ lent strut is described to replace the infill panels. Estimates of in-fill panel stiffness are given. It is recommended that cut¬ out ratios of 0-30% should be used.. emphasis is placed upon ultimate failure load predictions. A model used to predict the lateral load behaviour of an entire wood frame structure has been developed (Schmidt and Moody. The major conclusions of this study are: . but useful information at service load levels was also observed. 1977). A graphical method of predicting sideways deflection in the design of multi-storey buildings has been proposed (Wood and Roberts. This model assumes that there are a 17 . The results of finite element analyses on shear walls for moderately tall frames with cut-outs are described (Chang-Koon. The accuracy of this element decreases as the cut-out ratio (ratio of the width of the opening to the width of the entire element) increases. As with the previous model. 1975). They suggested that future full-scale tests on realistically clad frames com¬ plete with windows. An approximate method of analysis has been developed for multi-storey infilled frames subjected to lateral loads (Stafford Smith and Carter. but the basic analysis may also be of use at service load levels. doorways etc. . A new finite element is described which gives good results and can be more easily used than conventional elements. 1987). since sharpening h/100 to h/150 requires up to 15% more steel in the case of heavy roof claddings and up to 35% in the case of light¬ weight roof claddings. and 1/400 for those storeys of clad frames where the proposed composite design method is attempted.4 Numerical analyses related to serviceability In this section literature on numerical analyses related to serviceability problems is re¬ viewed.

They found that ignoring the P-5 effect leads to 9% error while a misuse Of joint stiffness may result in an error of up to 45%. based upon energy principles. Frames are modelled as before.Planar model. has been described for steel frames with a number of different lateral bracing systems. Lateral drift and stiffness were calculated. The strength limit states design of structures is nowadays treated in a large number of software packages (including buckling analysis. Efforts to model an eight storey reinforced concrete building that was destroyed during an earthquake are given (Wood. . It is particularly interesting since it is based on a numerical factor. Among these are the SAP-90 (Wilson and Habibullah. representing the member's contribution to the displacement occurring at a speci¬ fied point and a specified direction (Charney. plastic analysis. On the other hand. eLal. The models. Major conclusions from this study are as follows: . The mass of each floor is assumed to act at the centroid of the buildings 18 . Six models were made each with increasing levels of sophistication. it is increasingly recognised by the design packages. Measured lateral motions were recorded during two earthquakes. During these earthquakes the building responded in a predominantly linear elastic manner.series of shear frames arranged in rectangular fashion between a rigid floor and roof. 1990). and Dispar (Charney. etc. in order of increasing so¬ phistication. 1990). The effect of non linearity and joint flexibility on the lateral drift of steel structures has been investigated (Ho and Chan. 1989). The Dispar (acronym for Displacement PARticipation factor) program is suitable for planar frame and framed tube structures. Such a method could be of use when describing multi-storey structures acting compositely with non-structural components. 1991). The results of a comparison between analysis and modelling for a 13 storey steel- framed office building have been published (Maison and Ventura. shear and joint deformation (in % value) . The program GMNAF developed by the au¬ thors recognises geometric and material nonlinearities and includes the Ρ-δ effect in the analysis. . Frames are modelled with beam-column and beam elements.Three dimensional model. 1991). A sizing technique which can be used to minimise the material required for the lateral bracing of multi-storey buildings has been published (Baker. 1991).). though the introduction of the serviceability limit states design is still very mod¬ est. This method is most useful when lateral drift arid not strength is the controlling factor..Reasonable agreement is observed between mis model and full scale tests. accountedTor the effects of the following pararneters: . Of further interest is the fact that the factors may be easily broken down into components of flexural. The model that was used includes inte¬ rior partitions and the exterior cladding. 1990).Lateral and rotational behaviour of a structure consisting of non-linear shear walls between rigid floors and roofs can he estimated. This technique. axial.

..The parameters that have the most effect upon the building studied are the mod¬ elling of the frames themselves and the modelling of rigid joints between the beams and columns. Beams and columns are assumed to be rigidly connected. the effect of unequal heights for adjacent stories. 19 . Same as the previous model except that full composite action between the floor slabs and steel. It is shown that three existing expressions for lateral stiffness are only valid when beams are flexurally suffer than the columns. . Ρ-δ effects and the distribution of mass on each floor. The results of comparisons between these models and the measured response of the building suggested the following conclusions: . h.frame is assumed. Cs and xs. Several examples are given for various frame geometries and boundary conditions. h. the stiffening effect of the basein low-rise frames. . which are stated to have a significant influence upon lateral stiffness: . provide reasonably good estimâtes of story lateral stiffness even when storey heights and member stiffness (beams and columns) differ by up to 50%. Design-type analytical models can reasonably model the true seismic response of a steel-momênt-resisting frame provided that the applied loads are small (the struc¬ tural response remains linear and elastic). . Three correction factors in the proposed method. This proposed method includes the effects of the following parameters. . the influence of top and bottom boundaries (for each floor). Three correction factors in the proposed method. A simple method of approximating the lateral stiffness of elastic moment-resisting frames has been developed (Schultz. Same as the previous model except that Ρ-δ effects are included. . . This changes the effective lengths of each beam and column. The proposed method may only be used for moment resisting frames which are fixed at the base and only flexural deformations are considered. The major conclusions are as follows: . Parameters of relatively small importance are the effects of beam slab interaction. It is stated that a single value can be used to represent the stiffness of each story in an elastic rectangular frame which is sub¬ jected to regular distributions of lateral load. 1992). . Cs and xs. .A linear elastic model can be used to adequately predict the true dynamic behaviour of a steel moment-resisting frame. Same as the previous model except that the mass on each floor is more realistically distributed. provide reasonably good estimates of story lateral stiffness even for frames with columns that are as much as ten times suffer than the beams. . Same as the previous model except that the beam to column joints are modelled.

Steel framed buildings where the wall and the roof are sheeted have been extensively studied (Bryan and Davies. Major conclusions from this study include the following: . 1971). The reason for this change was ex¬ plained to be due to changes in non-structural building components. 1972). The authors described the stressed skin design concept and the difficulty arising from coupling the behaviour of the framed system with that of the sheeting. 1978). without increasing the weight of the structural frame. when subjected to lateral loading (Wood. deals with serviceability criteria. Design methods have been proposed for including structural frames and non-structural elements (in-fill panels).The shear strength to be gained by including in-fill panels is considerable. In-fill panels in steel framed structures have been examined with respect to provide extra passive damping (Gasparini. conservative. rules can be proposed. Part of mis document. Providing extra damping for light and 20 . Lateral drift limits are stated to be rather arbitrary in nature. . It is mentioned that buildings built before 1950 had less rigorous lateral load limitations than those im¬ posed in the 1970's (L/300 as opposed to L/500). It was found that the lateral deflection may be reduced by 20 to 50% depending upon height and length to width ratio of the floor plan. Due to the magnitude of this effect simple. The interaction Of structural elements with cladding in tall buildings has been studied (Dubas. This has led to a signifi¬ cant decrease of the frame lateral deflection calculated on the usual assumption that all loads are carried by a set of internal frames. The effect of using wall cladding on the behaviour of high rise steel buildings has been investigated (Scalzi and Arndt. Since 1950 the trend has been towards lighter and lighter partitions and cladding. Test results of frames with in-fill panels are used to verify theoretical and design predictions.Further work must be done to include the effects of openings such as doors and windows. 1981).5 Effects of cladding on deflection limits A review and evaluation of various structural systems employed in current building practice has been published (ACI Committee 442. The deflection behaviour of a multi-storey frame under lateral loads was studied taking into account the cladding effect He showed that cladding can con¬ tribute by as much as 30% to a decrease in the frame deflection. 1972). etal. this decrease is de¬ pendent on various parameters. The presence of the sheeting was considered as a stressed skin which imposes restraining forces on the frame. Before 1950 heavy masonry partitions and exterior cladding were common. Only ultimate load levels were examined. 1972). not service load levels.2. of which the number of storeys of the frame is particu¬ larly significant (for tall buildings for instance the effect of cladding becomes more im¬ portant). however.. The principal objective of this document is to explain the different lateral load carrying mechanisms in buildings.

and the 'pliability of joints between cladding elements and skeleton'. It is stated that these panels were not included in ultimate limit state calculations. Non-structural elements examined were 'blank and glazed walls and partitions'. and vibration distress were reported. . 1986). The type of cladding used were flat steel plates about 8 mm thick. It is stated that lateral movements in Rus¬ sian design codes are given as a function of the integrity of non-structural elements. requirements (alternatively joints between the wall separations should be provided to follow the de¬ flection without cracking).In-fill panels can be designed to have considerable stiffness and acceptable energy absorbing characteristics.flexible structures can help to meet serviceability requirements for lateral movements. 1988).Additional usable floor space was obtained due to a reduction in the size of the structural frame. Particular attention was given to the interaction of the envelope and me supporting structure. with cut-outs for window openings.Significant increases in the damping of a steel frame may be realised by incorporat- ing in-fill panels into the structural analysis. It was concluded that: . The effect of the envelope on high rise building frames has received attention (Bergmann. Preliminary design of such systems can be done by simple hand calculations. eLal. The case history of a high-rise steel framed office building that was designed as a composite structure with the exterior cladding to reduce lateral drift has been published (Tomasetti. It consisted of a questionnaire sent to Canadian consulting engineers and building officials. Cases of deflection. Details of the connections between cladding and the structural system are shown.The cost efficiency of the underlying steel frame was significantly improved. The displacement of a building as a whole is limited to L/500.Including the cladding in service limit state calculations reduced service sway by a factor of two. The resulting structural system (structural elements and in-fill panels) may be anal¬ ysed using a simple method which utilises an equivalent plane stress rectangle finite element to represent the actual panels. but included in serviceability limit state calculations. distortion.. accelerations and vibrations. 1991). The influence of non-structural panels and cladding on serviceability criteria for lateral drift has been published (Bat. Design examples are given and the following conclusions made: . . m summary it was concluded that where deflections may lead to wall cracking as well as window and door opening distortion. A survey into the serviceability of buildings has been conducted (Huggins and Barber. it may well be that some upper limit should be applied to permissible deflection in addition to the usual L/360. . 1982). . . etc. The maximum displacement of any one storey 21 .

1978). Static and dynamic tests were performed on both the bare steel frame and the com¬ pleted structure. The influence 22 . Results indicated that the frame with concrete cladding and frame transmit substantial shear forces. It is not clear. The contribution of individual components to the total lateral stiffness was estimated. This effect can be rea¬ sonably predicted using existing stressed skin design recommendations. reports for other framing systems such as reinforced concrete have been included in this review. is limited to L/300 and L/700. Static measurements showed a significant improvement in lateral stiffness and load carrying capacity due to the exterior cladding. Lastly. Portal frame hinges are located at the eaves.walled steel profiled cladding. As such connections were classified into three groups and individually studied. Exterior cladding consists of steel sheets 1mm thick with rib heights of 50 mm. contribution of wind load and its effect upon the fasteners between decking and steel frame. 1992). Particular interest is expressed about the dynamic. if the objective of this study is to examine cladding-frame interaction at ser¬ vice or ultimate load levels. A complete panel brick multi-storey building in an abandoned quarry has been tested (Sinha and Hendry 1976). an offset diagonal brace was proposed which could represent the bracing action of the cladding. This implies that the lateral stiffness is determined using the response spectrum of the building obtained from a dynamic excitation. connected to 160 mm deep channel purlins. when the structure is subjected to wind loads. Numerical and experimental studies were performed to estimate the actual stiffening ef¬ fect of concrete cladding connected to a bare steel portal frame (Gaiotti and Smith. At serviceability load levels test results indicate that the building can satisfactorily be analysed by replacing the actual structure with an equivalent frame in which the columns have the same sectional properties as the walls. not static. Due to the lack of references on steel-framed structures. depending upon 'the mode of connection of the walls and partitions to the building skeleton' and the 'material from which the panels and cladding are made'. Lateral loads were provided using hydraulic Jacks. The buildings behaviour was recorded under simulated lat¬ eral wind loads (serviceability load level). 2. Static and dynamic tests on a portal-framed storage building were undertaken (Strand and Pirner. and at the lateral collapse load. The purpose of these tests was to examine the interaction of the steel frame and thin. Both modelling and testing were performed on a one-storey one-bay frame. The objective of this study was primarily to determine the forces that are developed in connections between the concrete cladding and steel frame. however.6 Literature review on full-scale testing Test programs in the following review include only those from which static lateral stiffness may be estimated at service load levels. The total length of the building is 30 m. The structure consists of six two-hinge portal frames with spans of 12 m.

etal. the authors proposed a series of val¬ ues of the ratio 67L for different types of buildings and soils. 2. The three 'leaves' are of different heights. etal. Based on differential settlements (from field or labora¬ tory tests) and angular distortion of the building.7 Site measurements A summary of the results of a survey of existing data on ninety-eight buildings is available (Skempton and MacDonald. It was found. Each leaf consists of steel columns..The exterior cladding and interior partitions contributes significantly to the overall lateral response of the structure. Design values are stated to be grossly in error. A shaker (eccentric mass vibrator) was used to excite the structure. The structural system consists of a massive heavily rein¬ forced concrete core. . The conclusions of this testing program are the following: . Exterior cladding consists of both glass and lightweight panelling. 1979). If the cladding and partitions did not contribute. Evidence of the participation of the interior partitions is easily confirmed as cracking regu¬ larly occurs during and after the passage of high winds. the buildings response being smaller than predicted. and contain office space. reinforced concrete office building has been re¬ ported (Jeary. Conclusions drawn from this study are primarily concerned with comparisons between design values and measured wind loading responses.The cladding and partitions have effectively changed the location of the shear centre of the building. of the dynamic components of wind loads were shown to have negligible effects upon the immediate and long term lateral stiffness of the completed structure. Concrete floors in each 'leaf are cantilevered from the concrete shear core and attached to the steel columns at the periphery. onto which are attached cladding. The work consisted of actual measure¬ ments of building settlements. The structural system of this building is a concrete shear core with cast-in-place floor slabs and external reinforced concrete columns.. that the settlement characteristic principally causing cracking was probably the an¬ gular distortion. The results of an experimental study investigating the lateral stiffness of an 80 m high office building have been published (Jeary. 1979). Testing of a 46-storey. with three 'leaves' attached and supported by large concrete cor¬ bels at their bases. 1956). The latter is conveniently expressed by the ratio of the differential set- 23 . As a result lateral loads produce a significant torsional response. 190 m tall.Typical design assumptions ignoring non-structural components can lead to signifi¬ cant differences between assumed and actual in-service behaviours. . The buildings response is measured using both wind loads and a shaker placed on the 43rd floor of the building. Non-structural blockwork (internal partitions) are used. the building would have unacceptable lateral movements and vibrations. for exam¬ ple. Only passing mention is made concerning modelling considerations. The shaker was placed near the top of the building.

dement δ and the distance L between two points. From all the field data on cracking in
buildings a general limiting value of /L = 1/300 was obtained.

2.8 Summary
The literature survey reported in this chapter revealed the existence of a wide range of
documents related to different aspects of serviceability. These studies are not suffi¬
ciently complete, however, to permit researchers to answer the following questions:
a. load levels and intensity to be used in determining deflection limits,
b. basis (background) for the values used in the deflection limits,
c. contribution of the different components (non-structural elements) in the structure
overall deflection.

Concerning point (c), the following can be said. Previous tests of full-scale buildings,
regardless of the framing system, indicate mat exterior cladding and interior partitions
participate structurally at service load levels. Their participation may even be dominant
at service load levels. The effects of such a participation can be broadly divided into
two groups as follows:
- Beneficial. This includes increased stiffness, thus smaller lateral movements, and
decreased lateral vibrational problems.
- Detrimental. The building does not behave as expected by the designer. In some
cases this means that cracking of non-structural elements may occur. The buildings
response may be so different from that predicted by the designer that other unfore¬
seen problems occur, such as introducing a torsional response into what was
thought to be a symmetrical structure.

Only in the case of portal frames with thin-walled profiled steel sheeting are the effects
of cladding presently accounted for.

References
ACI Committee 442, 'Response of buildings to lateral forces', Journal of the American Concrete
Institute, p. 81-106, 1971.

ASCE Committee on Design of Steel Building Structures, 'Wind drift design of steel-framed build¬
ings. State-of-the-art report', Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 1 14, No.9, Sep.1988, p.
2085-2108.

Ad Hoc Committee on Serviceability Research, Committee on Research of the Structural Division,
'Structural Serviceability. A critical appraisal and research needs', Journal, Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE, Vol.112, No.l 12, p. 2646-2664, December 1986.

WJ7. Baker, Sizing techniques for lateral systems in multi-storey buildings, Proceedings Tall
Buildings: 2000 and beyond, p. 454-554, November 1990.

ΑΛ. Bat, V.A. Otstavnov and LI. Lemysh, On deflections and displacements, CTB W85 Reference
Document R91: IB, 1991 (Translated from Russian).

24

R. Bergmann, Structural serviceability aspects of building envelopes in tall buildings, Proceedings of
the symposium/workshop on serviceability of buildings, National Research Council, Canada, p. 293-
322, May 1988.

ER. Bryan and JAI. Davies, Stiffening effect of light cladding, Proceedings of the International Conf.
on Planning and Design of Tall Buildings. Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, August 21-
26, 1972, p. 643-651.

Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information (CISTI), Deformation requirementsfor build¬
ings, joint publication of the Steelbuilding Association, Rotterdam and the Concrete Association,
Zoetermeer. Report NRa CNR TT-1969. Canada, Ottawa, 1980.

F. Charney, DISPAR for SAP. A post processor for the SAP90 Finite Element Analysis Program,
Advanced Structural Concepts Division, J JL Harris and Company, Denver, Colorado, 1990.
-, Sources of elastic deformation in laterally loaded steel frame and tube structures. Design methods
based on stiffness, J.R. Harris and Company, Denver, Colorado, 1990.

C.-K. Choi and M.S. Bang, 'Plate Element with Cut-out for Perforated Shear Wall', Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, VoL 113, No. 2, February 1987.

R.C. Cooney and AJB. King, Serviceability criteria for buildings, Building Research Association of
New Zealand. BRANZ study report. Report SR14, 1988.

P. Dubas, Interaction ofstructural elements with cladding, Proceedings of the International Conference
on Planning and Design of Tall Buildings. Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, p. 675-683,
August 21-26, 1972.

R. Gaiotti and B.S. Smith, 'Stiffening of moment-resisting frame by precast concrete cladding',
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Journal, September/October 1992, Vol.37, No.5, p. 80-
92.

D.A. Gasparini, L.W. Curry and A. DebChaudbury, 'Damping of Frames with Visco-elastic In-fill
Panels', Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, May 1981, Vol. 107, No. ST5, p. 889-905.

D. Golembiewski, On the limitation of lateral displacement in designing steel frames,
Seminar/Workshop on serviceability limit states for steel buildings. IABSE Working commission Π,
Zurich, April 1, 1989, p. 8-15.

WJM.G. Ho and SL·. Chan, On the effect of non linearity and joint flexibility in lateral drift determi¬
nation of steel buildings, Hong Kong Polytechnic, Department of Civil and Structural Engineeringj
Research Report CE/010491, April 1991.

M. Holicky and G. Deak, Basic principles of the control of serviceability, Draft for CUB Programmé
W85, February 1989.

M.W. Huggins and J J5. Barber, 'Building deflection, distortions and vibrations. A survey', Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, March 1982, VoL 9, No.l, p. 133-137.

A.P. Jeary, B.E. Lee and P.R. Sparks, The determination of Modal Wind Loads from Full-Scale
Building Response Measurement, The International Conference on environmental forces on engineer-
ing buildings, held at Imperial College, London, July 1979.

A.P. Jeary and B.R£lIis, A Study of the Measured and Predicted Behaviour of a 46-Storey Building,
The International Conference on environmental forces on engineering buildings, held at Imperial
College, London, July 1979.

25

Ri*. Johnson, Deflection of continuous beams in steel frames with composite floors of steel and con¬
crete, Seminar/Workshop on serviceability limit states for steel buildings. IABSE Woiking commis¬
sion Π, Zurich, p. 3, April 1, 1989.

U. Kuhlmann, Slender footbridges, Seminar/Workshop on serviceability limit states for steel build¬
ings, IABSE Working commission Π, Zurich, April 1, 1989, p. 55.

T.C. Liauw and S.W. Lee, On the behaviour and analysis of multi-storey infilled frames subject to
lateral loading, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, Vol. 63, September 1977, p.
641-656.

Β J. Maison and CJE. Ventura, 'Dynamic Analysis of Thirteen-Story Building', Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 12, December 1991, p. 3783-3803.

K. Sato and M. Yoshida, Predicted and observed vibration of high-rise buildings and related human
sensitivity during typhoon, Seminar/Workshop on serviceability limit states for steel buildings,
IABSE Working commission Π, Zurich, April 1, 1989, p. 18-25.

JJB. Scalzi and A. Arndt, Plate wall cladding, Proceedings of the International Conference on Planning
and Design of Tall Buildings, August 21-26, 1972, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, p.
653-665.

RJ. Schmidt and R.C. Moody, 'Modelling Laterally Loaded Light-Frame Buildings', Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 1, January 1989, p. 201-217.

Ali. Schultz, 'Approximating Lateral Stiffness of Stories in Elastic Frames' ,
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 1, January 1992, p. 243-263.

B.P. Sinha and A.W. Hendry, 'Structural testing of brickwork in a disused quarry', Proceedings,
Institute of Civil Engineers, Part I, Vol. 60, February 1976, p. 153-162.

A.W. Skempton and D.H. MacDonald, 'The allowable settlements of buildings', Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, May 1956, p. 727-784.

B.S. Smith and C. Carter, 'A method of analysis for infilled frames', Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers, Vol. 43, September 1969, p. 31-48.

M. Strand and M. Pirner, 'Static and dynamic full-scale tests on a portal structure', The Structural
Engineer, September 1978, Vol. 56b, No. 3, p. 45-52.

RL·. Tomasetti, A. Gutman, LPiew and LM. Joseph, Development of thin wall cladding to reduce
drift in high-rise buildings, IABSE colloquium on thin-walled metal structures. Stokholm, 1986, p.
239-246.

F. Tschemmernegg, On the limitation of deflection of sway-frames, Seminar/Workshop on service¬
ability limit states for steel buildings, IABSE Working commission Π, Zurich, April 1, 1989, p. 16-
17.

N. Uchida, M. Kawamura, T. Aoyagi and H. Kirihara, Vibration offloor beams due to walking occu¬
pants. Study on measured data, Seminar/Workshop on serviceability limit states for steel buildings,
IABSE Woiking commission Π, Zurich, April 1, 1989, p. 31-52.

Έ. Wilson and A. Habibullah, SAP90 Finite Element Analysis Progra. Computers and Structures,
In., Berkeley, California, 1989.

26

26-27.H. Stark and S. April 1.9. 'Plasticity. Seminar/Workshop on serviceability limit states for steel buildings. M. Roberts. 600-619. IABSE Working commission Π. p. Part 2. September 1974. Steel Construction'. Vol. Wood. Vol. 353-372. 341-346. Yoshida and K. Journal of the Australian Institute of Steel Construction. 117. 381-411. June 1975. Vol. -. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. No.L. 20. 52. Woolcock and S. 1989. p.A. Wood. Predicted and observed vibration of high-rise buildings and related human sensitivity during typhoon. p. Sato. 'Effective lengths of columns in multi-storey buildings. Composite action and collapse design of unreinforced shear wall panels in fiâmes'. R. 59. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers. Part 2 No. 'Deflection limits for portal fiâmes. R. 'A graphical method of predicting sideways in the design of multistorey buildings'. The Structural Engineer. 27 . Part 3'.R. No. November 1986. S. 1-12. Wood and E. p. 65.T. No. Journal of the Structural Division.H. Green. February 1991. Vol. p.3. 2. 'Collapse of Eight-Storey RC Building During 1985 Chile Earthquake'. June 1978. p. ASCE. Kitipornchai. Zurich.H. S.

technical reports.6 mm thickness it was found that folding began when the least radius of curvature ρ of the profile was 25 mm. This means that structures are more likely to experience larger deformations in service. settlement. For the structure to perform acceptably (drift. which are dependent on a number of parameters (type of structure. simplified serviceability design rules are not readily available. and since the re¬ lationship ρ to distributed load is: 1 M qL2 L: span (m). though sometimes in a very modest way. The origin of such limits was also specified based on some test results. journal articles. type of foundations and soil. Swedish regulation on this matter were also reviewed. in most recently produced Codes and Standards an attempt has been made to specify design requirements for serviceability. has led to the use of lighter structures having greater flexibility. etc. f or a sheeting of 40 mm depth and 0. standards etc. EI: flexure (Nm2) ρ ~ FJ " 8EI and deflection y: max. Existing code requirements and design practices The increased understanding of building materials and structural behaviour achieved during the last few decades. papers. In this chapter are reviewed the serviceability requirements as reported in some design codes/standards. specific serviceability requirements. vibration.) at working loads.1 Serviceability limit states in current codes Deformation limits for roofs and walls of profiled sheeting have been reviewed (Douhan. deflection (mm) y 385EI y 40L 40 therefore. environmental conditions. 1980). A review has been conducted that has shown that numerous serviceability design cri¬ teria exist but that these are spread diversely through codes. The diversity of control¬ ling parameters means that easy-access. etc. The traditional design concept based on allowable stresses is not therefore sufficient to ensure acceptable performance in service as well as an adequate margin against failure. The series of tests was con¬ ducted on trapezoidal sheeting of aluminium with uniformly distributed load. For ex¬ ample. 384p 384p 28 .. 3.) are intended to prevent any excessive deformations from taking place under load combinations likely to be experienced in service. However. or are simply the customary practice of individual engineers.

mainly dictated by safety as well as economical considerations. the serviceability limit states defining the functional performance of the structure that should be met The LRFD specification lists five topics which relate to serviceability concerns. The code. deflections.3 give a summary of some of the recommendations adopted by the AISC for roofing and cladding deformations. connection slip e.1. Two categories of limit states have defined in the American steel design code (Fisher and West. walls not subject to special requirements L 90 walls subject to stringent requirements as regards appearance : no Design for serviceability is increasingly becoming an integral part in the Standards of many countries. corrosion.0 m 200 roofs with insulation and strip metal L 150 'JL_ roofs with insulation and double sheeting 90 uninsulated roofs L· 90 . Special interest was given to topic (c). . the strength limit states controlling the safety of the structure which must be met. 1990): . as described earlier.2 and 3.5m<L<6m 30mm L for L> 6. camber b. 1990). vibrations and drift d. This interest is. for a two-span profile L"330 These limits may be used as a basis for a design criteria for profiles of low bearing ca¬ pacity. Two types 29 . Table 3. Swedish sheeting manufacturers regulations for limiting deformations (due to dead and snow and wind loading) (Douhan. The British steel design code makes a provision for serviceability limit states design (BS5950. y L for ρ = 25 m for a simply supported profile L_240 -JL. expansion and contraction c. however. specifically excludes portal frames. 1980). Conditions Deflection limitation roofs with insulation and felt L for L< 4.5 m 150 for4. Tables 3. They are: a.1 are given some examples of limiting values.L. m table 3.

cladding cladding type and support cMormation recom. h 10 year wind wall 60 100 metal panels/girts or wind columns nor. Loading element TPaxiTpym membrane roof roofing expansion hor.2. J-L 250L snow load metal roofs standing purlin seam vert defl. J-L live load 240L metal deck verLdefl. 1· u drainage «to j111***1 metal roofs through fastener type purlin vert defl. 1990).Cladding (Fisher and West.Roofing (Fisher and West. the code sug¬ gests that the following factors should be considered at the design stage: .the environment .5in vert deflection dead load + masonry walls/lintel ^L<0. whether maintenance is possible. J-L 2401j 2001b cone. Serviceability considerations . deflection J-L 1201j 10 year wind foundation precast walls/bare fiame drift perpendicular to J-h 100 10 year wind wall reinforced masonry drift perpendicular to J-h 200 10 year wind walls/bare frame wall masonry walls/girt or nor. J-L live load 240 roofs vert defl.of limit states are considered: deflection and durability. the shape of the members and the structural detailing . For the latter. maximum loading support type element metal panels/bare frame drift perpendicular to J_ J.3in live load columns pre-assembled units/ bare racking J-h 10 year wind frame 500h 30 . Roofing type Structural Deformation Recom. defl. 1990). if any .3. J-L 3001b cone. Table 3. load at 200 mid-span metal deck vert defl. load at mid-span steel joists vert. Serviceability considerations . the protective measure. J-L 240L live load joist girders vert defl. movt 150 to 200 thermal joints feet metal deck (two span) vert defl. the degree of exposure . J_L dead load + live load 240L roofs slope 1. J-L 150 L snow load Table 3. deflection 10 year wind wind column 24Õ"L<1.

In Table 3.4 are shown some deflection limits as suggested by BS 5950.
The new Australian steel design code states that responsibility for selecting deflection
limits rests with the designer, but gives some recommendations (AS4100, 1990). The
code gave some suggestions concerning vertical as well as horizontal deflections limits
for certain types of structure (see tables 3.5 and 3.6).

Table 3.4. Deflection limits for certain structural members (BS 5950, 1990).
Structure Member Limit
a. Deflection on beams due - cantilever length
to unfactored imposed 180
loads - beams carrying plasteror other brittle fin¬
ish *» (L = SpaD)
L
- allotherbeams
200
b. Horizontale deflection of - top columns in single-storey buildings
columns other than poral 3ÍÕ O"1"*»
names due to unfactored - in each storey of a building with more than
imposed and win loads one storey height of storey
300
c. Crane gantry girders - vertical deflection due to static wheel load span
- horizontal deflection (calculated on the top 600
flange properties alone) due to crane surge span
500

Table 3.5. Suggested vertical deflection limits for beams (AS 4100, 1990).

Deflection to be consid Deflection limit δ for Deflection limit δ for
Type of beam ered spanLÍt) cantilever LÖ)
beam support deflection which occurs 5-<J- 5-<J-
ing masonry after the addition or at L "SOO L "250
partitions tachment of partitions where provision is made where provision is made
to minimise the effect of to minimise the effect of
movement otherwise movement otherwise
.1
δ< J
L -1000
i<J-
L "SOO
all beams total deflection δ < 1
δ κ 1
L ^250 L ^ 125
t· Suggested deflection limits in this table may not safequard against ponding.
$. For cantilevers, the values of 6/L given in this table apply, provided that the effect of the rotation at
the support is included in the calculation of δ.

Table 3.6. Suggested horizontal deflection limits for beams (AS 4100, 1990).

Building clad in steel or aluminium sheeting wihthout gantry cranes and withhout
internal partitions against external walls 150
Building with masonry walls supported by steelwork
240

The new European steel design code defines the following serviceability limit states for
steelwork (Eurocode 3, 1991):
- deformations or deflections which affect the appearance or effective use of the
structure (including the malfunction of machines or services)

31

- vibration, oscillation or sway which causes discomfort to the occupants of a build¬
ing or damage to its contents
damage to finishes or non-structural elements due to deformations, deflections, vi¬
bration, oscillation or sway.

Concerning deflections, Eurocode 3 defines the deflection of a beam ôm» (sagging in
the final state relative to the initial straight line, see figure 3.1) as being the algebraic
sum of three types of deflections δο, δχ, δ-·*.

Omax = δι + δ2 - δο
where
Çmax = sagging in the final state relative to the straight line joining the supports.
δο = pre-camber (hogging) of the beam in the unloaded state, state (0)
δχ = variation of the deflection of the beam due to the permanent loads immedi¬
ately after loading, state (1).
$2 = variation of the deflection of the beam due to the variable loading plus any
time dependent deformations due to the permanent load, state (2).

(oU - -

- J ',
Trowï «^ /wWK
""- »
^ (D
* » 'max
(2)

3.1. Vertical deflections to be considered (Eurocode 3, 1991).

The vertical deflection limitations for buildings are given in table 3.7 in which L is the
span of the beam (for cantilever beams this length is doubled). In table 3.8 are given
the horizontal deflections at the tops of the columns Oi is the height of the column or of
the storey, ho is the overall height of the structure).

Questions concerning the design of portal frames, omitted by the BS5950, has been
discussed in the Journal of the Steel Construction Institute (Steel Construction Today,
SCI, 1991). For a portal frame such as that shown in figure 3.2, the deflection limits
for pitched roofs are given in table 3.9a/b (table 3.9a. for horizontal and 3.9b. for ver¬
tical deflections). A wide range of side and roof cladding materials is covered in the
table.

32

Table 3.7. Recommended limiting values for vertical deflections (Eurocode 3, 1991).
Conditions Anax δ2
- roofs generally L L
200 250
- roof frequently carrying personnel other than for maintenance L L
250 300
- floors generally L L
250 300
- floors and roofs supporting plaster or other brittle finish or non-flexible L L

-

V
cic
partitions
- floors supporting columns (unless the deflection has been included in the
global analysis for the ultimate limit state)
where Omax can impair the appearance of the building

Table 3.8. Recommended limiting values for horizontal deflections -- sway (Etnocode 3, 1991).

- portal frames without gantry cranes

- other single storey buildings

- in a multistory building: in each storey

on me structure as a whole
250
L
400
L
250

Table 3.9a. Deflection limits for pitched roof steel portal frames (SCI, 1991). Horizontal deflection at
eaves level, due to wind or imposed roof load or 80% (wind and imposed).

Typeofroof
h
150
h
300
b
300
ho
500

Absolute Differential deflection relative to adjacent
350
L
500

deflection fiame (see figure 32)
1

side cladding: profiled metal sheeting
4> -

fibre reinforced sheeting <Jl
"150 -'..

brickwork _Vh2 + b2
"3ÕÕ - 660
hollow concrete blockwork ^/h2 + b2
- 500

precast concrete units .Vh2 + b2
- 330
roof cladding: profiled metal sheeting
-200
fibre reinforced sheeting .-.
<-*- ' ' 'I
"250
ι .

felted metal decking -
<Jl-
- -- - ' ..,, ..-.-..^ . 1
-400

33

Table 3.. being recognised by many Codes and Standards. Type of roof Differential deflection relative to adjacent frame (see figure 32) profiled metal sheeting . supported on rafter . Deflection limits for pitched roof steel portal frames (SCI. experimental data on real structures may have the last word to decide on what deflec¬ tion limits should be adopted in design for serviceability. For example.4. The diversity of influencing parameters made easy-access to simplified serviceability design rules very difficult and patchy. 250 felted metal decking. 200 S =r + 0.2 Conclusions The investigation carried out on the serviceability requirements has shown the impor¬ tance of the issue.Vb2 + s2 *Iõõ "* £ 125 fibre reinforced sheeting .Vb2 + s2 áz^r and . .. . supported on purlins . the economic aspect will be very decisive for design. 34 . for cantilever beams the Australian Code specifies a limit of L/125 whereas the British Code gives a limit of L/180. Due to these diversity. . 250 .. This difficulty was further increased by the lack of a clear definition of the load combination or the structural component to which the deflection limit applies.9b. 1991). This is illustrated by the increase in popularity of the subject. L being the span of the beam. Portal frame definitions (SCI. Vertical deflection at ridgev(for slopes > 3*). In order to be able to produce a unified code.-Vb2 + s2 I *èâ ** 165 felted metal decking.2. As can be seen the difference is quite remarkable and as stated in Section 3. 3. .Vb2 + s2 ájÕÕ ad . no attempt was made to compare serviceability limits from dif¬ ferent codes. .. 1991). due to wind or imposed roof load or 80% (wind and imposed)./2) 3._.

Stockholm. Steel Construction Today. p. British Standard Institution. 8-15. 203-206.L. July 1991.. D. p. National Bureau of Standards. SIA 161. 1990. 1989. Edition 1979. Seminar/Workshop on serviceability limit states for steel buildings. Vol. 'Structural Serviceability. p. Suryoutomo and R. 67-84. VoL 5. A literature and state-of-the-art survey. 2646-2664. H. Part 1.V. 1986. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). T. Gould. Design of steel structures. Galambos. Golembiewski.112. ASCE. P. General Rules and Rules for Buildings. No. 35 . Advisory Desk. Ravindra. April 1. Ellingwood. 112. On the limitation of lateral displacement in designing steel frames. 1980.S. BS 5950. 4.1-1990. Australia Standards AS4100. Fisher and M. Journal of Structural Engineer. Department of Commerce. Steel Structures Code. ASCE. J. 112. The Steel Construction Institute (SCI). Swedish Council for Building Research. Sweden. Journal of Structural Engineering. Zurich. 'Serviceability limit states. Deflections'. December 1986. Serviceability design considerations for low-rise buildings.-Apr. West. Building Science Series 47.References Ad Hoc Committee on Serviceability Research. The use of structural steel in buildings (1990). Deformation limits for roofs and walls for profiled sheeting. Galambos and B. IABSE Working commission Π. No. U. October 1973. Stahlbauten. Structural deflections. p.A. Document D32: 1980. Commission of the European Communities. A critical appraisal and research needs'. T. Jan. Crist. L. Eurocode 3. Committee on Research of the Structural Division. Douhan. No.M.K. 1990.A.V. M. 1991.

Much guidance can be found in the Uterature and in design codes concerning the calculation of static floor deflections. however. Dynamic and vibrational problems are not included in this literature review because they are the object of an on-going CIB study. This study is being undertaken by the CIB working group W85 'Structural Serviceability'.differential settlement. Key words used in the uterature search were steel construction. were also reviewed. Ntis. deformation(s). drift(s). Compendex and Pascal data systems. side-sway. Static floor displacements are excluded because such de¬ flections are primarily due to the floor system itself. Articles of particular interest are presented under one of the following headings: lateral movements. Serviceability problems in existing steel- framed buildings This chapter contains a compilation of reports of unsatisfactory structural behaviour in existing steel-framed buildings. Preliminary results are included of a survey on serviceability sent to designers in the United Kingdom. France. Switzerland and the Netherlands. pseudo-static and dynamic. In some instances exceptional loading conditions have been included The following subjects. differential settlement and ponding. wind. shear stiffness(es).ponding. Italy. 4. Nottingham and Trento. test. are not included in this compilation: Static floor displacement. performance. ponding. deflection(s).1 Review of previous studies A review of the most prevalent types Of structural failures has been attempted [Janney. Articles containing previous reviews of serviceability problems in steel-framed build¬ ings are first presented. The period surveyed includes the years between 1970 and 1991. stability. Additional references. serviceability. The results of this review are summarized as follows: 36 . Iconda. testing. The contribution of the rest of the building (including the steel frame) to vertical floor deflections are of secondary impor¬ tance. Several thousand references were re¬ viewed using the Brix. available at TNO. Dynamics and vibrational displacements. failure. . 1972].lateral movements. This review is restricted to the following types of problems which may be observed during normal in-service use: . .

Deflection of supporting members. Rainwater penetration due to exterior curtain wall movements. Bearing. deflection of supporting members. inadequate shoring and heavy construction loads at an early age. Most problems were due to poor design details and/or poor workmanship and super¬ vision. The major results of this sur¬ vey are as follows: Vibrations. cracking of masonry or partition walls because of excessive deflections. These problems were reported to be both frequent and costly. but all proved to be costly to repair. in-service performance and com¬ plaint thresholds. as a percentage of all complaints: 37 . Excessive side-sway. Problems of assessing actual serviceability in the case of a claimed serviceability failure. Several different problems were reported. It is due to a combination of the load-defection characteristics of a relatively flat roofs structural system. The following serviceability related problems were reported. First. They state that there are two in¬ teracting serviceability problems: . Ponding. Two basic types of serviceability data are needed. Shear. Typical errors are the placement of drains near columns. for government buildings in Australia (circa 1981-1984). 1987]. This survey was intended to gather in¬ formation in the following general categories: vibration. Few (two) cases were reported. One case was due to an incompatibility of deflections between adjoining slabs. The in-service performance of building structures was examined in this review. It is stated that stability failure often occurs as the final result of other structural prob¬ lems. Most problems were connected with open web steel joists. Shear failures are normally considered as ultimate limit state problems. improper or inadequate drainage and sufficient source of water such as a torrential downpour. and is most often due to punch through in slabs near columns. Problems of designing for serviceability. Bearing failures are normally considered as ultimate limit state problems. This type of failure is most commonly associated with precast beams or slabs. Concrete cracking due to thermal shock. Ponding can be considered as a serviceability and/or an ultimate load problem. the other due to support rotation. This type of failure is related to bearing failure. bulging of cladding and excessive side sway. A review of problems related to the proper assessment of serviceability limit states is reported in the literature [Leicester and Pham. A survey of serviceability problems experienced by 385 designers throughout Canada was conducted [Huggins and Barber. . Stability. 1981]. Stability failures are normally considered as ultimate limit state problems. drains that are too small and inadequate roof cambering. Bulging of cladding.

38 . The results of this study may be summarised as follows: .jammed doors and windows 15% .wall cracks 65% . 1972].With available data the in-service performance of most structural components can be estimated. Cracking of the exterior cladding (brick-work) and of interior walls was documented. 1990].Damage to non-structural specimens. Damage (or the lack thereof) at different settlements was reported for load-bearing brick wall structures and for steel or reinforced concrete frame buildings with panel walls similar constructions. Texas) was subjected to tornado force winds.floor deflection 7% . etal. This indicates that not all serviceability problems may be directly attributed to excessive building movements..vibration 10% . built and tested in the laboratory. .window distortion 3% Conclusions from this article include the following: . is reported for both structural and non-structural ele¬ ments as a function of angular distortion. A summary of the results of data on 89 buildings with differential settlement problems were presented. Cracking can result from any one of these mechanisms. This study illustrates the diffi¬ culty behind determining the exact cause of an observed failure. .The first step towards the rationalisation of serviceability design limits is the speci¬ fication of 'legal' performance limits. Permanent lateral drift was mea¬ sured as a function of building height 4.Most available data on serviceability are of limited use. A review of the causes behind premature deterioration of exterior cladding in high rise structures has been reported [Cheung and Khan. Damage (and lack of damage). three failure mechanisms can be identified: Moisture deposition. Lub¬ bock. Tentative values for damage limits in terms of angular distortion were established.3 Differential settlement A 35 year old publication is included in this review because it closely addresses the subject studied [Skempton and MacDonald. For the case of cladding. The structure (The Great Plains Life Insurance Building. Surveys can be used as rep¬ resentative but biased sample« of compiami thresholds. building distortions and chemical or ultra-violet attack. 4. . 1956]. is reported at angular distortions smaller than L/300.2 Lateral movements A steel-framed high-rise building subjected to extreme winds has been examined [Minor. .

Structural damage in buildings is not reported until an angular distortion greater than L/200 is observed. 15 clogged 1% 200 mm .4% yes full discharge capacity at 70 mm 6 NLP no 0.28% no slip in rigid connection 5 high no 0.61 % yes 11 NLP no 1 % 200 mm torsional buckling of beam 12 NLP no 0. discharge outlet 1 clogged no 0.4% yes 7 small no 0..5% yes 19 NLP 100 mm 025% 250 mm slope locally too low 20 small small 0. This is primarily for panels made of brick. ' ' no 16 small no 1% 150 mm 17 small no 1% yes vertical discharge opening 18 small no 0.3% yes failure of bolted connection 4 NLP 0.Non-structural damage in buildings occur at angular distortions as small as L/300. in other cases the slope causes a non uniform flow high: the opening of the rain pipe is placed too high Emercency outlet no: there is no emercency outlet created not relevant because there is no parapet . Table 4..mm: emercency outlet placed at a height of .mm: the height of the parapet above the roof 39 ...1. Case Normal Emercency Slope Parapet Remaries nr. mm above the roof Slope %: actual slope near damaged section Parapet yes: the roof has a parapet .06% yes very sensitive for ponding 13 NLP yes 0..9% 140 mm structural system sensitive to non-uniform loading Normal discharge NLP: rain pipe is not located at lowest point dogged: partly clogged with leaves branches and other rubbish small: in some cases the full discharge capacity is only reached when there are some em's water on the roof. tiles and clinker blocks.18% yes 2 clogged no 1% yes' ' ι 3 small no 0. .. outlets located wrong 14 small no 0..65% 850 mm '.1% 200 mm 10 clogged no 0.8% yes . Summary of structural damage reports due to ponding. 8 NLP no unknown yes torsional buckling of beam 9 small no 0.3% yes emerc.

Slope of damaged part was less or equal to 1%. The results of this survey are presented in table 4. Note that it is divided into the parts: . the following: .Water dis charge capacity was too small either by dimensions. . fabricators or construc¬ tors. . France. Final results.2. An English language copy of this questionnaire is shown in figure 4. It can be concluded that similar characteristics in case of failure are: .The types and uses of steel framed buildings for which existing serviceability crite¬ ria require significant expenditure on the part of designers. . 1.The types and uses of steel frames buildings for which problems most often occur.Strength and stiffness of the roof were not based on the height of the parapet or lo¬ cation of emergency outlets.1. Switzerland and the Netherlands. The objective of this questionnaire was to evaluate. have been collected and analysed. 4. location (placed to high) or accumulation of rubbish. Preliminary results of this survey are given in table 4.5 Serviceability survey As part of this study a questionnaire on serviceability sent to designers in the United Kingdom.4 Ponding Reports on structural damage due to ponding.4. .The effectiveness of design code provisions for serviceability. available at TNO Building and Con¬ struction Research.The impact of design code provisions for serviceability. Such areas are of importance for further study. including Germany and England will be available at a later date. Italy. Individual reports are not in¬ cluded in the reference list For steel structures most cases relate to partial collapse caused by ponding of rain water. from a practicioners point of view. 40 .

Preliminary results of the questionnaire on serviceability.) 2 4 3 construction (stability. Question CH F GB I NL 1 type of structure: bare steel 4 4 7 14 composite 1 1 . Part B: The effectiveness of de¬ sign code provisions for serviceability (Note: More than one answer can be given to each question). _' 2 type of portal 3 1 3 8 construction: multi-storey 3 4 7 4 truss . Question CH F GB I NL 1 type of structure: bare steel 4 5 I 7 14 composite 1 1 .) 1 2 5 cairøpies/cantitivers/balconies 2 _ _ 3 other : a. 3 2 other . 1 3 principle building use: commercial 2 1 _ 6 81 residential 2 . _ 3 beam/floor deflection 4 _ . 4 1 other _ _ _ __- 2 type of construction: portal 3 1 4 7 multi-storey 4 3 9 5 truss 3 2 10 other (a) _ _ . Responses included the following: Changing user requirements Table 4. _ 2 1 erection (tolerances. Responses included the following: Long spanning structures b. 6 2j industrial 2 5 4 12 other (b) _ . etc._ _ 2 3 3 10 foundation movements _ 1 1 10 cracking of non-stmctural comp. Responses included the following: Public utility buildings. Nr. _ _ .3. 3 2 3 3 stniOure/non-stnjcture _______ . 1 12 j other ι 3 principle commercial 2 1 _ 6 9 building use: residential 2 2 . _ 4 ' 2! industrial 2 3 . light framed buildings and new roof in¬ stallation._ 3 13 other (a) -2l 4 type of problem: jammed doors/windowa 2 1 ι crane rail deflection 2 1 ' . - a. . Preliminary results of the questionnaire on serviceability. etc. 4 δ beam/floor soffit deflections pending 2 _ 3 . Responses included the following: Public utility buildings c. 2 4 design modification: increase member size 41 3 4 14 further investigate limits 1 -r 5 1 use alternative design 1 5 10 other (0 -i _____ 1 . .. Nr. 41 . Table 42. Part A: The impact of design code provisions for serviceability (Note: Moie than one answer can be given to each question).

etc. Principle buildings use Commercial Residential Industrial Other 4.) Construction (stability.1. Γ 1. resistance to corrosion and fatiaue are not included. Type of construction Portal Mutistorey Truss Other 3. Please answer each question by cireling the appropriate response: A. Type of construction Portal Mutistorey Truss Other 3. Type of structure Bare steel Composite Other 2.) Canopies/cantilevers/balconies Other 4. vibrations. Design modification Increase member size Further investigate limits Use alternative design Other Β The effectiveness of design code provisions for serviceability Identification of steel framed buildings where serviceability problems have most often oc curred.Survey on serviceability criteria for steel framed buildings Preambe. 1. Principle buildings use Commercial Residential Industrial Other 4. etc. English language version of the serviceability questionnaire 42 . The impact of design code provisions for serviceability Identification of steel framed buildings where serviceability provisions require the most design modifications. Serviceability limits that are of interest for this survey are static onlv: ResDonse to dynamic loads. The purpose of this questionnaire is to ascertain the impact and effectiveness of serviceabil ity design code provisions for steel framed buildings. Type of structure Bare steel Composite Other 2. Type of problem Jammed doors/ windows Crane rail deflections Beam/floor deflections Beam/floor soffit deflections Ponding Foundation movements Cracking of non-structural components Structure/non-structural attachments Erection (tolerances.

R. Serviceability limits. Such cases may be due to large lateral drifts in slender structures. 727-784. It is important to note that damage due to lateral movements at serviceability limits are often confined to non-stractural elements. April 1972. M. responsibili¬ ties. 'The allowable settlements of buildings'. This is verified by Skempton and MacDonald's observations of real building behaviour at ro¬ tations near L/300. must be used when data is not available. It remains to be ex¬ plained. Reports on damage at service load levels are not accompanied by drawings or details of the par¬ ticular structure for which damage was reported. 201-214. Tall Buildings: 2000 and Beyond. References M. Qeveland. however. distortions and vibrations. Khan. Most of this information. causes. 1987 (CIB-W85). Thus. Hong Kong. field measurements or numerical models including non- stractural elements.H. 133-137. This is the only study of the effects of a specific deformation type on building compo¬ nent performance. Fourth World Conference.R.H. Pham. all non-stractural el¬ ements should be checked at service load levels. The difficult task ofresearchers and code writers in establishing serviceability limits is well documented. 49-73. ACSE: Structural failures: modes. how data such as occupancy surveys can be used to 'adequately' estimate individual component behaviours. Council on Tall buildings and Urban Habitat. unacceptable dynamic response or due to excessive floor deformations and vibrations. p. Mehta and J. Minor.4. 1982. Skempton and D. MacDonald. ACSË: Structural failures: modes. Janey. McDonald. Ohio. Cheung and J. p.6 Conclusions Several references were found which review serviceability related damage to existing buildings. Huggins and JD. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division. ACSE National meeting on structural engineering. The Institution of Engineers. 'Building deflections. 11-20. p.W. ACSE National meeting on structural engineering. Barber. A survey'. causes. April 1972.C. responsibilities. Such observations. Exceptions may occur when stractural elements control a design at service load levels. Vol 9. November 1990. however. R. This implies that at service load levels non¬ structural elements receive a large proportion of deformation imposed forces. Leicester and L. p. 43 . J. Premature Deterioration of Building Enclosures in High-Rise Structures. JE. is from occupant surveys. No. Legal serviceability limits imply estabüshing acceptable damage risks for each building component (stractural and non-structural). May 1956.W. 1.. p. for normal steel construction practices. Comparisons between serviceability limits and observed damage for structural and non-stractural elements were reported. Qeveland. K. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. A. however. Ohio.S. Australia.

however. concrete crushing. existing information on the following topics is examined in this chapter: . plastification attachment deformations. An estimate of the lateral in-plane stiffness of non-structural components is needed if the designer wishes to include such components in building design calculations. 44 . 2. whether or not the designer intended for them to participate or not This participation that can lead to serviceability problems such as cracking.The initial in-plane stiffness of non-structural components typically used in steel framed buildings. Non-stractural components which form the interior walls. At present.Cladding. If significant degradation does occurs at service load levels. The in-plane strength and stiffness of non-structural components can have a substantial effect upon a buildings lateral response at service and ultimate load levels. In order to address these three points. Non-stractural components which form the exterior walls.Partitions. that these components have no stractural integrity. This implies that cracking. The term 'non-structural component' refers to cladding and partitions that are not in¬ cluded in ultimate-limit-state design calculations. however. gaps forming between cladding panels. .Non-structural components of steel- framed buildings This chapter contains a review of typical non-stractural components and attachments between structural and non-structural members used in steel-framed buildings. Non- stractural components are classified at follows: . do not oc¬ cur. This is normally done by limiting individual storey drifts. the structure is much suffer that the bare steel structure. In reality.Previous investigations in this field. etc. Non-structural components often contribute to the stractural response of steel framed buildings at service load levels. The model used by the designer. This greatly simplifies the models that may be used to in¬ clude non-strachiral components. etc. . windows or doors that do not open or close properly. 3. buckling.. designers limit lateral deformations (thus the applied force) in each non- stractural component of a building. the structure is clearly not serviceable. only takes into account the strength and stiffness of the bare steel frame. For service load levels initial stiffness may be assumed. This does not imply. Reasons for examining non-stractural components and attachments can be stated as follows: 1 .

cinder block and clay tiles. Good construction de¬ tails are shown. A literature review was undertaken for years between 1960 and 1992. The use of stainless steel components in buildings as masonry support systems has been investigated [Fallon. Compendex and Pascal data sys¬ tems. 1992]. Such studies. while interesting. Key words used in searching the search were brick. . . cinder blocks. Experimental and theoretical investigations of the compressive and out-of-plane bend¬ ing strength and stiffness of non-stractural components are not included in this review. The applied load or deformation at which service problems occur in non-stractural components. joints. 45 . Articles reporting upon related past studies are first presented. Several thousand ref¬ erences were reviewed using the Brix.) are not treated in this chapter.The strength and deformation capacity of attachments. wooden framing. Articles of par¬ ticular interest for one component or connection type are presented under one of the following headings: connections and details. masonry walls. The stractural behaviour of the steel frame it¬ self and other components normally included in ultimate-limit-state design calculations (reinforced or prestressed concrete. clay tiles. such as sandwich panels and profiled sheeting.Typical constructive details for attachments. Ntis. Only references investigating the lateral strength and stiffness of non-stractural components commonly used in steel-framed buildings were retained. . Basic properties of stainless steels are reviewed. wood.The maximum load carrying capacity of non-structural components. brickwork. stonework. Comprehensive lists with common sizes and dimensions as well as material properties are given for each type of tie and anchor. Components that are included in ultimate-limit-state design calculation of some steel framed struc¬ tures. available at TNO. 1976]. plywood. . Three current types of stainless steel masonry support systems are reviewed: continu¬ ous angles. etc. Nottingham and Trento. Additional refer- ences. adhesive and stone. have little effect upon the lateral behaviour of steel- framed buildings at service load levels. The results of this literature search are presented according to their primary subject matter. 5. individual brackets and composite bracket/ angle.1 Connections and details A review of all common types of metal ties and anchors used to connect brickwork to structural elements has been completed [Grimm. Iconda. are included in this review. glass curtain walls and sandwich panels. were also reviewed. advantages and disadvantages for each type are discussed. shear walls. Illustrations showing details of the connection between brickwork and support and included. Several design recommendations for ties and anchors are pre¬ sented. timber. mortar.

and Ameny 1990]. 5. . It is stated that these studies clearly indicate. Details of steel frame connections used for the replacement of defective precast con¬ crete wall panels with brick masonry veneer have been classified [Cowie. A review of previous studies which examine the effects of such non-stractural ele¬ ments on the service behaviour of steel framed structures has been published [Smith. A review of different anchor connectors for stone slabs has been published [Amrhein. however. .A design procedure is proposed to include such panels in a structural analysis. 5. This implies that the cladding and structure act together under lateral load conditions. etal. . Gaiotti.3 Brickwork Review of selected references Brickwork is commonly used as exteriör cladding in steel-framed buildings. 1986].The effect of forces on the cladding and their connections are typically ignored (non-conservative). . . Two distinct types of 46 . that non-stractural precast concrete units significantly contribute to the in service behaviour of steel framed buildings.Usually specified connections between the steel frame and precast concrete units in North America do not isolate the cladding. it is stated that . A reference list is given containing 12 studies between the years 1973 and 1989. theoretically and experi¬ mentally. A calculation procedure given in this paper. in 1990].Use of this procedure has shown that building lateral deflections may be reduced by between 36% and 68%.. Such units may be reinforced or prestressed. A significant potential exists to use such cladding to brace steel framed buildings. eLal. may be found.2 Precast concrete cladding Precast concrete units are typically used as exterior cladding on steel framed buildings. and constructed using normal or light¬ weight concrete. including both structural and non-stractural elements. Connection détails have been published for me case history of a high-rise steel framed office building that was designed compositely with the exterior cladding to reduce lat¬ eral drift [Tornasela. Some use of brickwork as interior partitions.Cladding failure using existing construction practices occur not in the precast units but in the connections between the units and the steel frame. Test results for different anchors and stone qualities are given. The conclusions of this paper are as follows: . 1990].The positive effect of such cladding of lateral building stay is typically ignored (conservative). Further. Design criteria for precast cladding and typical connections between the steel frame and cladding are reviewed.

Without axial load. Precast. The joints between bricks normally do not consist of standard mortar. as follows: Fdt = kVfm in which: Frit is the shear strength of brickwork in diagonal tension as measured using 15 in di¬ ameter split disks with bed joints at 45° to the applied load.brickwork are commonly used in steel-framed buildings. The influence of 16 variables on the behaviour of brick walls has been published [Grimm. The following general remarks and observations about the shear strength and stiffness of brickwork were made: . brick by brick. in lb/in2 47 . Special mortars consisting of polymer glues are often used. When brickwork is placed in the same plane as the row of steel columns direct shear connections be¬ tween the vertical edges of the brickwork and the steel frame may be present The col¬ umn to brickwork details must be carefully examined to ensure that no gap has been left between column and cladding. Mortar is often referred to by the ratios of each material in the resulting mix. may be due to tensile failure of the mortar. Brickwork is supported by the concrete floor slabs or on a steel section which is at¬ tached directly to the steel frame. Such mortar contains cement. 1975]. Methods of predicting the shear strength of a brickwork are proposed. however. lime and sand or just cement and sand. Influences (given in the form of equations) are based upon the cumu¬ lative results of several past studies. however. This provides an exterior wall which is architectarally pleasing.Shear strength is a function of me bond strength of the mortar and the frictional re¬ sistance at brick-mortar interface (itself a function of applied axial load and the ori¬ entation of the mortal joints with respect to the applied load). the strength of brick masonry may be predicted based upon diagonal tension in split disks. These angles are directly attached to the steel frame. the only direct shear connection between the brickwork and stractural frame is on the bottom (support) edge. Brickwork is often placed outside the last row of columns. Of particular interest to this review. In such cases. This is because normal mortar will not withstand the forces and vibrations associated with moving the finished panels to the job site.Shear failure. Two formulas for general use are proposed as follows (one without axial load. . These are referred to as fol¬ lows: Cast in place. one including axial load). This type of brickwork is normally placed by hand. Tie backs (thin metal strips) to the steel frame are then used to inhibit the brickwork from moving out-of- plumb. as it is free from interruptions. The joints between bricks normally consists of stan¬ dard mortar. Precast brickwork is generally supported by stractural steel angles or channels. lateral shear force and stiffness was included in this review.

μ is Poisson's ratio (values for brickwork range from 0. Typical values range from 1030 N/mm2 to 8960 N/mm2. 1976].5.k is an experimental constant (values are normally between 2. the shear strength of brick masonry may be predicted using the fol¬ lowing expression: fs=1.separation along mortar joints '. as follows: E Ev = 2(1 + μ) in which: Ev is the shear modulus of rigidity of brickwork E is the tangent static modulus in compression of brickwork (values given for brickwork range from 3300 N/mm2 to 18300 N/mm2).splitting in the approximate direction of the principle stress. average = 3.5) fm is the compressive strength of brick masonry prisms. The load capacity of brickwork has been investigated. in lb/in2 (fp must be greater than Q fb is the bond strength of the mortar to brick. 48 .68) fp is die axial compressive stress.6 and 1. when subjected to a diagonal compressive load combined with a compressive edge load acting in the plane of the wall and normal to the direction of the mortar joints [Yokel and Fattal. average = 0.splitting about the axis of principle stress . most of which are dated between the years 1955 and 1975.33. and three general failure modes were observed. in lb/in2 φ is the coefficient of internal friction (values are between 0.4fb + <i>fp in which: fs is the shear strength of brickwork. in lb/in2 With axial load.2) A good literature review is available at the end of this article. in lb/in2 It is stated that lateral shear tests of full size brick walls are difficult to perform. 32 wall specimens were tested. Several types of small-scale tests are also widely used. 1 1 to 0. containing 79 references. These are the following: . A formula for general use is given for computing me shear stiffness of brickwork.5 and 4. Several methods are currently in use. The modulus of rigidity of brickwork increases with compressive strength.

however.707)Pd/bt Pd is the diagonal load capacity when Pv = 0 (measured from tests without verti¬ cal edge load). Failure modes change from joint separation to joint sptitting as the compressive edge load is increased. 49 . This is the following: τ0 = το + μσν in which: ic is the nominal shear stress at failure το is the shear strength at σν = 0. . This article is organized as follows: . as following: . clay tiles and cinder blocks has been published [Fattel and Cattaneo. 1977].Failure modes due to crushing of the bricks themselves or mortar joints spUtting in the direction normal to the plane of the wall was observed.failure by a critical biaxial combination of normal principle stresses.failure at a critical in-plane tensile strain.failure by critical normal stress. be within the fol¬ lowing range: -l<^>-5 Xd where: td is equal to (0. A state-of-the-art report covering three types of masonry walls: brickwork. A general introduction is given concerning common types of masonry and their uses in wall systems. σν is the nommai vertical stress μ is a coefficient thought to be related to friction . The major conclusions of this study are as follows: . b is the panel width t is the panel thickness Pv is vertical edge load. . Three failure hypothesis were examined. The load combination must. the failure load may be predicted assuming that the failure originates in the centre of the panel and is caused by a critical combina¬ tion of principle stresses. When failure is caused by splitting. . An equation is developed which predicts failure load when joint splitting is ob¬ served. Failure under combinations of compressive diagonal and edge loads can occur by joint separation or splitting. Theoretical failure hypotheses for this type of loading and failure modes were developed.

shear specimens will fail along the loaded diagonal by shear cracking in the mortar joints.Several appendices as included at the end of this reference which do not have a di¬ rect bearing upon this study. Such distributions can. or by a combination of both. .3 and 0. is included at the end of this article. The results of an analytical technique to predict the failure load of a brick shear walls subjected to compression and in-plane shear forces has been published [Samarasinghe. Testing types and conditions for the lateral shear strength and stiffness of brickwork are given. mod¬ ules of elasticity and the shear modules of rigidity. The influence of openings and their inclusion in design formulae are discussed.. It is stated that barring premature compressive crushing of the masonry at the diago¬ nally loaded corners. Most articles in this reference list are between the years from 1950 to 1977. Tables of test values for the failure load are also included. or by tensile cracking of the bricks.Limit states for masonry walls are described under combined loading conditions. etal.5) A substantial bibliography. As a 50 . This includes tables of test results for compressive strength. tensile strength in flexure. . 1981]. A formula is proposed which included these modes of failure. be influenced by wall geometry. with 81 entries.Sampling and test methods are discussed. how¬ ever. . as follows: in which: fv is the masonry shear strength Pu is the diagonal compressive load at failure (measured from axially loaded speci¬ mens) A is the approximate cross-sectional area parallel to lhe mortar joints u is a coefficient representing the influence of the compressive shear strength (between 0. boundary conditions and load application. The failure criteria used was the following Mohr-Coulomb relationship: τ = τ0 + μση in which: τ is the average shear stress at failure to is the initial shear bond strength μ is the coefficient of friction oh is the average normal stress at the joint The underlying hypothesis for the use of this failure criteria is that the failure load is not sensitive to the stress distribution within the panel. shear strength.A review of previous tests and test results is presented.

1. An experimental program has been conducted consisting of six masonry infilled steel frames [Dawe and Mcbride. *^~mw PMMtflt Emmm Mhmm» lwmc rtin _ fu_l_i-i-l.result. An example is given in figure 5. Failure initiation can be reasonable predicted using this failure criteria. 1985]. 1985]. In addition to full-scale testing.1. initial stiffness (stiffness prior to cracking) was predicted using hand calculations. In all cases. The previous study was further investigated [Dawe and Young. Results of analytical methods suggested by other researchers are suggested for predicting pre-crack stiffness. The shear strength of brick panels does not seem to increase linearly with applied axial load. 51 . finite element analysis were made. model predictions must be used with caution when changing any of the previ¬ ous values. The experimental evaluations are based upon representative stress-strain relations and a failure surface for solid brick masonry. An increase in ductility and ultimate load of the brickwork due to me steel frame was cor_firmed. Data sheets have been gathered based upon tests performed under biaxial stress [Dhana. The finite element formulation accounts for non-linear deformation. 1985]. Data sheet for brick wall tests. Fnat ml Fnw» _-r !--__. The effects of joint reinforcement. bb 5. The conclusions draw from comparisons with full-scale in-plane shear tests are as follows: . Non-linearities as of the order of 10%. Here the ef¬ fects of openings (such as doors and windows). bond and friction between panel and frame. Fram #i ζ _f o -j Deflection. . airspace between roof beam and panel. and ultimate load carrying capacity are presented. wall-tö-column tie systems and the use of bond beams were evaluated. cracking and sliding of the joints between bricks. It was found that the initial cracking load was reduced due to the presence of openings. and column-to-panel ties were investi¬ gated.

such as windows and doors has also been studied. Brickwork has been examined for a wide range of loading and boundary con¬ ditions. and due to mortar tensile failure.A joint coefficient of friction of 0. . Mortar tensile behaviour is defined as a function of the ultimate local shear stress and local normal pre-compression stresss. Tests confinning the theoretical model were also presented. The published failure criteria is applicable for joints under higher axial stress (above 2 N/mm2). to change as a function of the applied average normal stress. Three distinct failure modes are defined: joint slip. Unfortunately.7 can be taken as the lower bound estimate for a wide range of brickwork types. Some work has been preformed to estimate shear stiffnesses of brickwork subjected to in-plane shear forces. On. etal. . Some work has been done to classify the stractural behaviour of common components used to connect brickwork to load bearing frames. . The Mohr- Couloumb type failure criteria previously proposed by other researchers is criticised as it requires the coefficient of friction. reflecting wide variations between mortar qualities. No physical reason for such a change has been found. limiting load levels for serviceability criteria or providing guidance as to maximum shear deformations that may be imposed prior to unacceptable service behaviour. little work has been performed examining real boundary conditions between brickwork and steel-framed structures. Shear failure criteria for masonry joints subjected to axial and in-plane shear force have been published [Riddington and Ghazili. Shear load-displacement behaviour during static and cyclical loading was investigated. mortar tensile failure and brickwork crashing. joint compressive stresses less than about 2 N/mm2. . A review of past references is first presented. thus a significant amount of research has been devoted to examining its structural characteristics.Residual shear strength does not seem to be affected by the number of shear cycles. 1989]. The conclusions of this investigation are the following: . The effects of openings. Summary m Brickwork is used structurally in other building types. Most of this ex¬ perimental and theoretical research has been performed to determine the ultimate strength of brickwork (walls constructed using bricks and mortar). 52 .The results of this study can be used to include joints in brickwork in finite element studies. Little or no research has been directed at defining initial in-plane shear stillnesses. It is stated that joint slip is the dominant failure mode with small axial load. 1990].Peak and residual lateral shear strengths of brickwork are well represented by the Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria.Cohesive joint strength show a wide scatter. Calculations must be made us¬ ing the aid of a computer. μ.A study of joint failure under lateral shear load was made [Atkinson.

Non-load bearing cinder blocks and clay tiles are typically used in steel-framed build¬ ings as interior partitions. they are often covered by other claddings. The joints between blocks normally con¬ siste of standard mortar consisting of cement. Test results include information on both strength and stiffness. A number of different tests are reported. lime and sand or just cement and sand. No in¬ formation on the initiation of cracking is provided. such materials are not frequently used as exterior cladding. starting with simple tests and culminating in biaxial loaded panels subjected to quasi-static and dynamic loads. No design formulae are proposed. Cinder blocks are classified according to their dimensions but are normally between 30 and 40 cm long. Shear tests have been conducted on concrete masonry walls [Hegemier and Krishnamoorty.5. 1977]. Being less aesthetically pleasing than brickwork. clay tiles and cinder blocks [Fattoi and Cattaneo. 1977]. 15 to 20 cm height and 5 to 15 cm thick. The con¬ clusions of a study on brick were found to be applicable to burnt clay and masonry irtfill walls [Dawe and Mcbride. Often partitions are located in the same plane as rows of columns. If the ratio of interior openings to the total net area exceeds 25% concrete block are referred to as open and are usually non-load bearing. Clay tiles are similar to cinder blocks but nor¬ mally have smaller wall thicknesses. when estimating the shear behaviour of cinder block and clay tile partitions. Both cinder blocks and clay tiles are normally layed by hand directly on a concrete floor slab.4 Cinder blocks and clay tiles Review of selected references Cinder blocks (also referred to as concrete masonry) are made from cement and stan¬ dard or lightweight concrete aggregate. As is the case for brickwork. When used as such they are often left exposed and provide excellent thermal and fire resistance. 1985]. When used on exterior walls. Cinder blocks normally have one or more interior openings. As with brickwork. 53 . As such their stractural behaviour has received some interest in the literature. This results in substantial weight savings and in¬ creases their thermal insulation properties. openings (such as doors and win¬ dows) and joints (such as expansion joints or construction joints) must be taken into account A state-of-the-art report has been published which covers three types of masonry walls: brickwork. If the vertical edges of the partitions fit tightly against the columns direct shear connection with the steel frame may be assumed. are commonly used as stractural components in other building types. Stracturally. column to partition details must be carefully examined to ensure that no gap exists. cinder blocks behave similarly to brickwork. This research is part of a larger effort to develop a basis for predicting the earthquake response and damage to concrete masonry walled stractures. and like brickwork. however.

thus their use is limited. limiting load levels for serviceability criteria or providing guidance as to maximum shear de¬ formations that may be imposed prior to unacceptable service behaviour. most consists of vertical studs. no direct men¬ tion is made to in-plane shear forces. This is largely due to the similarity of such walls with brick walls. 5. Little or no research has been directed at defining initial shear stiffnesses.5 Stonework Stone and mortar walls are normally used for their aesthetic value as exterior cladding. Existing research suggests that cinder block walls and clay tile walls may be easily included in finite element calculations for steel-framed stractures at working load lev¬ els. It is stated that even though the use of such cladding is wide spread in the United States. A study of safety factors for thin stone curtain walls for buildings has been published [Tawressey. Analysing the results of the finite element calculations to determine whether or not service problems will occur (cracking in the brickwork or excessive lateral movements of the stracture) may pose a problem when using existing knowledge. Such partitions 54 . cinder blocks or clay tiles. They are far more expensive than brickwork. For most wooden diaphragms horizontal wooden studs are provided at the top and bottom of the frame (sometimes referred to as headers or sole plates). This increases the shear resis¬ tance of the frame and facilitates connecting the frame to floor and/or roof.6 Wood framed diaphragms Review of selected references Wood framed diaphragms consist of a large variety of materials and construction methods. At service load levels cracking should be greatly limited. These partitions are normally placed in the same plane as columns. 1990]. In steel-framed buildings wooden diaphragms are often used as interior partitions. Little work has been performed examining real boundary conditions between brickwork and steel- framed stractures. Connections between sheathing and studs are normally made in one of two ways: by nailing or gluing. Summary u The literature search indicates that a significant amount of experimental and theoret¬ ical research has been performed which may be used to determine the ultimate strength of cinder block walls or clay tile walls. care must be taken when connecting steel frame elements and brickwork elements. no national standards exist In this review. with occasional cross-bracing. 5. Due to the lack of work examining real boundary conditions between brickwork and steel frames. Little work has been performed specifically for cinder blocks or clay tile walls. covered by sheathing (plywood or gypsum sheets). In general.

.The effect of connections between plywood and frame (rigid or non-rigid) in rect¬ angular diaphragms. . Deflection formula and useful design curves for determining maximum allowable deflections of walls of various types of construction. which are generally more re¬ cent than the mid 1960' s. . . . Strength and stiffness of roof diaphragms with different percentages of decking edge glue. Methods for evaluation of sheathing materials on a standard wood frame. 1975]. The references in this state-of-the-art review list is considerable. . . . . . or from two or three separate plywood panels per wall. diagonal boards. The purpose of this review was to provide engineers with lists of design related documents for wood diaphragms (in the form of a bibliography) and to give key research documents. Test method for complete diaphragm assemblies. regardless of other sheathing. No design formulae are given in the review itself. The effect of differential deflections in shear diaphragms (for roof panels) . . melüding framing. Test method for complete shear-waU assembHes.Lateral tests of wooden roofing with decking. .Diaphragm action of diagonally sheathed wood panels . above the level of hung ceilings. If gaps exist. Diaphragm action of plywood panels in combination with fiberboard sheathing. including framing.The effect of openings in roof diaphragms. . Non-rectangular flexible diaphragms. A review of the internal action of timber diaphragms. A full-scale house racking test results. .Shear tests of plywood sub-floors and gypsum ceilings for residential housing. double diagonal boards or plywood. together with a study of the stresses caused by curving of sloping portions of the diaphragms to conform to common to common truss shapes. The details of connections between column and partition must be studied carefully to ensure that no gap exists. or from one plywood panel in combination with fiberboard sheathing. A incomplete list of subject information contained in this bibliography is listed as follows: . . . with more than 120 entries. The design of diaphragms consisting of transverse boards. 55 . This reference is highly recommended when reviewing all prior wood diaphragm research. the only direct connection between the wooden diaphragm and the steel frame is at the floor slab.rarely extend from floor to roof but stop short of the roof. A state-of-the-art review on wood framed diaphragms for the ASCE select committee on wood of the stractural division was published [Carney.Full-scale test of housing modules. Design methods for timber diaphragms.An analysis of a shear wall and wood frame building.

. The goal of these tests was to develop and partially substantiate a computer program for the stress analysis of the panel. etal.. Data sheet and schematic for wood panel tests. .2. 56 . = 25. 10 ION HrOM-UC JACK W» XI90 5.«r· Experimental Panel (1 ft = 0.305 m.4 mm) Π 0 ^--WIO-X 4» ΙΑΤΙΜΑΙ -nett STOP' MACH« LOCK« ICH \ TIE MOD- COM) CELL -0*0 BLOCK __ . 3/4" Plywood Sheathing 2. 1975]. new fastener types and spacings. chip[board and flaxboard. 1 in.2.by 4. Static and cyclic tests of horizontal roof diaphragms made of plywood.Test results from diaphragms made of many types of wood. Comparisons of the racking behaviour of many different types of wooden wall construction. These are shown in figure 5.. . Data sheets have been gathered from tests performed on wood shear panels bonded with flexible adhesives [Richards.inch Framing M»m. The adequacy of diaphragms with long-span framing.

however.The shear strength of a wooden diaphragm may be predicted based upon panel ge¬ ometry. Comparisons are given between a method used to predict shear strength and test results. This model can not be used to predict shear stiffness. Simplified formulas have been proposed. the lateral resistance of one nail and a small scale test Using only small scale tests is much more cost efficient than per¬ forming full-scale tests. The formula predicting initial shear stiffness is as follows: r. 1978]. adjusted for the width of the interior nail pattern (given in table form) Kma is the racking coefficient for vertical nail spacings.The results of an investigation on the shear strength of rectangular light-frame nailed walls has been published [Tuomi and McCutcheon. adjusted for the height of the interior nail pattern (given in table form) Knb is the racking coefficient for horizontal nail spacings.Good correspondence is obtained between model and test strengths. the number and spacing of nails. 1 G =^b Γ Kwß + Gt 57 . adjusted for the width of the interior nail pattern (given in table form) The major conclusions of this study are as follows: . . adjusted for the height of the interiör nail pattern (given in table form) Kmb is the racking coefficient for vertical nail spacings. The proposed for¬ mula is as follows: R = r-[(Kn + Km)p + (a2Kna + b2Knb + a2^ + b2Kmb)f] in which: R is the theoretical racking load r is the lateral nail strength (one nail) a is the ratio of heights of interior to rjerimeternail patterns b is the ratio of widths of interior to perimeter nail patterns f refers to interior nails ρ refers to perimeter nails Kn is the racking coefficient of for horizontal nail spacings (given in table form) Km is the racking coefficient of for vertical nail spacings (given in table form) I-na is the racking coefficient for horizontal nail spacings. for the design of wood frame shear walls with sheathing attached by nails or other types of discrete fasteners [Easley. Tests were performed to provide a comparison with formula predictions. based upon previous work on profiled steel sheeting. 1982].

in which: G ' is the linear shear wall stiffness b is me panel length between end fasteners røntre lines K is the constant in the linear load-slip relation for fasteners (obtained for load-slip curves of nail joint tests) w is the panel width between side fastener centre lines G is me shear modulus of elasticity of the sheathing material t is the thickness of the sheathing panels β is me panel attachment modulus. "e wß in which: Fs is me maximum side fastener force Ν is the shear force per unit length on the shear wall Fei are the resultant end fastener forces Xei is the distance from the panel centre line to the end fastener % is the number of end fasteners at each end The major conclusions from this study. .The stiffness formula provides a good approximation of the initial slope of the load deflection relation for a typical shear wall. 58 . equal to the following: β=%+_____±2ΐΑ w in which: ns is the number of side fasteners at each side nSj is me number of fasteners in each interior stud le is the second moment of inertia of end fasteners Is is the second moment of inertia of interior stud fasteners The maximum shear force may be obtained by equating the maximum experimental values obtained from nail test results to the lower value predicted by the following two equations: -_ Nb Fs=T or. are as follows: . appropriate for this review.The allowable design loads for shear walls can be based on allowable values for the maximum force in the wall sheathing fasteners.

usually due to nails. . Major conclusion from this article are summarised as follows: . A numerical model has been developed for predicting the lateral shear behaviour of wood framed houses [Gupta and Kuo 1987. The major conclusions of this study ar as follows: . These walls consisted of a stud frame with sheathing (plywood. A non-linear partial connection is assumed between studs and sheathing.Uplift can greatly decrease the lateral stiffness of wooden shear walls. or other types of sheathing. representing nail non-linearities give good re¬ sults in this model when compared with test results. f(x)=A-B. The effect of dead loads can partially or fully compensate for this loss. Simple stractural analyses are presented with predict the following: . The afore mentioned formulae should be applicable to shear walls of any size sheathed with fibreboard. however. The most important conclu¬ sions from this work are as follows: . 59 . A simple power curve.The model is dependent upon determining the behaviour of the connection between stads and sheathing. 1985]. .For very long walls the effect of uplift on shear stiffness is greatly reduced. A mathematical model has been presented for analysing partially composite wooden diaphragms [Gutkowski and Castillo. The maximum static lateral load carrying capacity . Data sheets from this reference are shown in figures 5.. wood or gypsum board) placed on one side or both sides.The model may be extended to include buckling of studs and buckling of the sheathing by identifying limiting stress levels in each component The static and dynamic characteristics of wood framed shear walls have been examined [Rliatrault 1990]. This method can not be used for predicting lateral deforma¬ tions. The method is based upon energy methods and in¬ cludes nail load-slip relationships and linear deformations due to shear distortions of the sheathing material.3 to 5. . two references].5. and those using screws. The formulae presented are valid only if no separation occurs in the framing mem¬ ber joints between the studs and the header of sill when the wall is loaded. A numerical model has been developed to predict the shear strength of wood-stud shear walls [McCutcheon. a parameter not included in previous models.Lateral nail tests or small-scale racking tests can be used as the basic data needed to predict the shear performance of this type of wall system. .If uplift does not occur the nail force-slip relationship has the strongest influence over lateral behaviour. . The stractural response due to earthquake excitation. This model includes up¬ lift in studs. 1988]. . metal. staples or other types of discrete sheathing fasteners.The model performed well even in non-linear regimes. The stiffness of such walls subjected to lateral static load .

it has received a significant amount of attention in the literature. As such. It is further stated that wood framed shear walls have been developed in the past ten years to the point where they are commonly used to provide lateral stiffness and strength in wood framed stractures. -fleetien D. until recently. 5.·.<?'' Λ ί: .V ft «% · 'i'! «tud tr mmm '.3. These analyses are contained in a computer program developed for micro-computers. A O. Data sheet and schematic for wood-gypsum panel tests. It is thought that the computer analyses could be easily incorporated into a larger stractural analysis. β 1 . Most of this experimental and theoretical effort has been directed towards estimating ultimate strengths. Summary Wooden diaphragms are widely used for the construction of residential housing.s.éf ^ ^ · ι ν . 60 . . has been concentrated on estimating shear stiff¬ nesses or deformations due to in-plane shear forces.H' tr* _:"Γ-""* \ > j eoo # (»Ini fttue cun·) T ttttTm _ (l-_) < »I«'» furmij W*»E_S O. In. Little work.

such as windows or doors. or providing guidance as to maximum shear de¬ formations mat may be imposed prior to unacceptable service behaviour. 61 . uplift becomes much less important . Wooden diaphragms.4. is directed at defining limiting load levels for ser¬ viceability criteria. β 5. Ό « O J 200 ο. in general. . The effects of openings. such as cracking. such as windows and doors has also been studied.The force versus slip relationship of the connection between sheathing and studs (nails or glue). If the frame is long. Data sheet and schematic for wood-gypsum panel tests.The shear stiffness of the sheathing.The presence of openings in the frame. however. have been examined for a wide range of loading and boundary conditions.The presence (on absence) of uplift at the bottom of each frame. Major factors influencing the shear strength and stiffness of wooden diaphragms have been found to include the following: . . Little or no research.

2 O. WA-ELS O O O . Data sheet and schematic for wood-gypsum panel tests. The topics covered in these 62 . No data was found in the literature concerning their structural be¬ haviour under lateral loading. in. A series of articles conprning the use and design of glass curtain walls has been pub¬ lished [Glass in Building Design and Construction. ·_*·"" ' .5. 10 cxp«riMnt_l curve· Protra. β D-41«tlan D. :\y: \ : Λ :. Some work has been done to classify the stractural behaviour of common components used to connect brickwork to load bearing frames. including other stractural aspects of glass curtain walls. 5. ι O. 5. was found. A O. Ε·"ί tud fr-mmm ::* : __*"-·* Af Ό ___-__-_ "' 'ff II I TJ « /·/ O J 200 i Letead ~. Unfortunately.7 Glass curtain walls Glass curtain walls are used as exterior cladding for medium and high-rise steel- framed buildings. 1967]. little work has been performed examining real boundary conditions between wooden frames and steel-framed structures. One general reference.

and have been in use for a number of years. 5. Due to a lack oftest data these recommendations will most likely suggest that only the exterior steel sheet directly connected to the sandwich panel be taken into account Design recommendations for this steel sheet will be referred to the appropriate sections of the ECCS recommendations for stressed skin design. Profiled steel sheeting is not commonly used as interior parti¬ tions. Tolerances for movement of the frame relative to the glass panels are discussed. Most stractural emphasis is placed upon wind loads and proper support of the glass in the frames. 63 . published re¬ ports are not yet publicly available. Recommendations for the structural use of sandwich panels in steel-framed stractures are currently being drafted. A review of deformation limits for profiled sheeting has been published [Douhan. practice. Sandwich panels are gaining wide acceptance as an economical solution for both exterior and interior usages with steel-framed stractures. are cut to length and bundled for shipment to the construction site. In plane shear tests on sandwich panels have been conducted. loaded monotonially and cyclically until collapse have been prepared [Italsider] . 1980].9 Sandwich panels This is a relatively new category of stractural and non-stractural element consisting of two parts: exterior thin walled steel sheets and a lightweight core. These documents are freely available to designers. as the results of this knowledge have been included in existing design recommendations and codes.75 mm to L5 mm in thickness. A series to tests have been performed on profiled steel sheet wall subjects to shear forces. An overview of recent developments in glass curtain wall design for high rise build¬ ings have been published [Gartner. articles are design. In this review me functional stability of attachments subjected to lateral forces were included. 1990]. Data sheets from this test program are included in figures 5.6 and 5. Shear testing and shear stiffnesses are not covered. 0. It is not the intent of this report to review this lit¬ erature in a systematic manner. in-service experience. Profiled steel sheeting is commonly used as exterior cladding on walls and roofs of steel framed buildings. Typical edge details are shown but no in¬ formation is given about lateral movements or maximum in-plane shear strength. The profiling process normally is undertaking in continuous cold- role forming machiné. Swedish and other national practices are reviewed.8 Profiled steel sheeting Profiled steel sheeting normally are formed using thin-walled material. testing. however. A substantial body of knowledge concerning the structural behaviour of profiled steel sheeting is available in the Hterature. No study of the use of sandwich panels as non- stractural elements in a steel framed structure are known. 5.7. At the end of this process panels consisting of a few ribs (between 2 to 6).

Few references are available on this subject Standard details should be classified according to their structural behaviour (strength and stiffness). Strength requirements may be based only upon the weight of non-stractural components. 64 . Attachments between the steel frame and non-structural element.6. Very general lateral drift limits have been adopted that are applied to all buildings regardless of construction type. Recommendations should be made defining minimum acceptable structural behaviour. . Θ 5.10 Conclusions Existing codes acknowledge mat a buildings lateral response is in part governed by the type of non-structural components used. Limits on lateral movements are defined ac¬ cording to standard uses of non-stractural components. _. 1 i ΙΡ£2«0 SO: i\_ i /¡\ A _. For each of the following subjects the present state-of-the-art is summarised and sug¬ gestions for further work are presented.Attachments isolating non-structural components from the structural system. J_ _J7_ Ι I «0 400 1 t / 1 % v«e bf sagoma Ht 300 ή f * \:! ι Pl ir. Such attachments should allow a pre-defined minimum rotation to occur before signifi¬ cant lateral force is transferred to non-stractural components. 5. y / »-J S¡ 4 L__ sezione S-S -ti i I 1 i autottenantt ι PN 120 CI cucitura tsî.s ¿I schema di assembiagge dl tesaggi. Data sheet and schematic for simple steel sheeting tests. This could be done for two cases: .

Attachments for non-structural components that participate with the structure at service load levels. . Numerous existing test data can be used to estimate such values. and other problems all occur at load levels that exceed serviceability limits states. . researchers ex¬ amined only the maximum load carrying capacity and failure modes at ultimate limit 65 .7. however.Jistimates of initial in-plane shear stiffness are needed for all types of non-stractural components. / U«x42 e. - ii . out-of-plane deformations. Initial in-plane shear stiffness equations need only characterise the initial stiffness of cladding and partitions. In-plane shear stiffness of non-structural elements. Cracking. In most on these tests. Data sheet and schematic for simple steel sheeting tests. plastification.· / /«_. The initial stiffness of the attachment should be significant The strength of the attachment should be sufficient to carry the weight of the non- stractural components and fail only after significant serviceability problems have occurred in non-stractural components.? _ /> <jT 5.-·.

Adequate deformation characteristics. 'Response of Masonry Bed Joints in Direct Shear'. 'Formulas for Wood Shear Walls'. 1977. 7-11. S. however. February 1989. Experimental investigation of the shear resistance of'masonry panels in steel frames. Vol. Fourth World Congress. 4. Deformation limits for roofs and walls of profiled sheeting. 1371-1384. An investigation offactors influencing the behaviour of masonry infillin steelframes subjected to in-plane shear. February 1985. Document D32:1980. Dhana. Amrhein. B. No. ST11. Steel Construction Today. National Bureau of Standards. VoL 17.l.T. Anchor connections of stone slabs.W. Vol. 791-801. No. Amadéi.H. p. Foomani and R. January 1992. R. Yong. JJL Dawe and T. Journal of the Structural Division. Design Aspects of Curtain Walls of High-Rise Buildings. 803-814. Fattal and L. Cattaneo. p. 9. 2423-2436.. p. Vol. 43-651. Cowie and P. p. Melbourne Australia. guide-lines could be put fourth for estimating the effects of small and large openings. Hatch and M. Replacement of defective precast concrete wall panels with brick masonry veneer without relocating building tenants. Atkinson. Proceedings of the 7th international brick masonry conference. 101. No. Evaluation of Structural Properties of Masonry in Existing Buildings. p. Carney. JJL. p. Sweden. The maximum ap¬ plied load or deformations that each type of non-structural element may withstand be¬ fore serviceability problems may be expected remains to be explored. p. J. Saeb and S. Melbourne Australia.C. 66 . Filiatrault. 2276-2296. November 1990. Dawe and R. Fallon.H. Stockholm. References LE. Gartner. McBride. August 1990.T. Merrigan. J. The behaviour of brick masonry under biaxial stress with particular refer¬ ence to infilled frame'. M. November 1982. February 1985. Ameny. JJM. 307-316. Fifth North American Masonry Conference.W. VoL 115. S. F. are necessary in all cases to ensure adequate serviceability. Definition of load limits or imposed shear deformation limits. 2460-2478.P. February 1975. Dodds. Hong Kong. No direct infor¬ mation was published on this subject Many tests have been performed but have yet been analysed with respect to serviceability. Further. L. 1980. 1-117. 108. Easley. Journal of the Structural Division. June 1990.H. Sture. No. Fifth North American Masonry Conference. Douhan. February 1985. 'Stainless steel in building'. R. 'Static and Dynamic Analysis of Timber Shear Walls'. p. Swedish Council for Building Research. Engineering. p. p.G. Tall Buildings: 2000 and Beyond. A. J. Proceedings of the 7th international brick masonry conference. Journal of the Structural Division.states. p. ASCE. ASCE. June 1990. 'Bibliography on Wood and Plywood Diaphragms'. Building Science Series 62. Page and Kleeman. It must be noted that not all non-stractural elements need be included in calculations at service load levels.B. ASCE. Proceedings of the 7th international brick masonry conference. Canadian Journal of Civil. STI 1. No. 1417-1424. Melbourne Australia. 6.

Kerfoot and Drueger. STI. 89-102. 839-858. January 1975. 239-246. ASCE. 42-48. VoL 114. Journal of the Structural Division. 'Wood-Framed Shear Walls with Uplift'. RJM. LP. Vol. Part 2. 257-269. No. Yokel and S. 114- 154. 7. Gaietti. J. No. Development of Thin Wall Cladding to Reduce Drift in Hi-rise Buildings. St3. Fattal. Institute of Civil Engineers. Design and Cbnsiracirøn.and Double Sheathed Wood Shear Wall Study'. Vol. 'Metal Ties and Anchors for Brick Walls'. Effect of Precast Concrete Cladding of the Behaviour of Tall Buildings.K.A. An Experimental Study of Concrete Masonry Under Seismic Type Loading. 'Modelling of a Wood-Framed House'. 515-532.G. 1131-1140.P. Hong Kong. -. Proceedings. Journal of the Structural Division. p. p. Gutkowski and AJL. Glass in Building. and A. 1268-1284. Gupta and GJ?. Building Research. Samarasinge. p. p. p. McCutcheon. Building Science Series 106. September 1977. Hendry. 89. May-June 1967. RJL. 2. No. 'Racking Strength of Light-Frame Nailed Walls'. Vol. Page. Hypothesis for shear Failure in Masonry Joints.CT. Fifth North American Masonry Conference. Tawressey. p. Fourth World Congress. Vol. Ill. ASCE. ASCE. 'Failure Hypothesis for Masonry Shear Walls'. 'Strength and Related Properties of Brick Masonry'. 2. p. 102. June 1990. Tall Buildings: 2000 and Beyond. R. No. March 1990. -. VbL 104. 59B. November 1990. 113. 'Behaviour of Brick Masonry Shear Walls'. p. Ghazili. ASCE. Vol. No. Journal of the Structural Division. 'Racking Deformations in Wood Shear Walls'. Stl. Castülo. No. ASCE.Y. p. ASCE. 1417-1424. ST4. April 1976. 217-233. 131-149. p. WJ. p. McCulcheon. January 1975. Vol. Lew and LJvL Joseph. A. Gutman.W. No. IABSE Colloquium on Thin-Walled Metal Structures. JJL Riddington and M_Z. Italsider. 2.S. Journal of the Structural Division. Journal of the Structural Division. Journal of the Structural Division. No. F. ASCE. B. A. Journal of the Structural Division. ASCE. 'Wood shear panels bonded with flexible adhesives'. Tuomi and WJ. Indagine sperimentale sulla duttilità di pannelliparete in lamiera grecta. 6. RJL. 241-259. G. Journal of the Structural Division. March 1976.G. p. February 1988. Vol. Stratford Smith and R. Tomasetti. No. A. 102. Monography no. Hegemier and G. p. Krishnamoorty. p. February 1987. ASCE. 113. Kuo. Factors of safety for thin stone in building curtain walls. 317-332. The Structural Engineer. No. National Bureau of Standards. Vol. W. September 1981. 260-278. Journal of the Structural Division. Richards. 67 . February 1985. p.101. ST7 July 1978. JA. 'Single. 3. Stockholm 1986. Grimm. Il comportamento delle strutture portentidi acciaio alle azoini -/smicfe.W. 101. February 1987. Vol.

yet guidelines for a practical appraisal of this relationship with reference to serviceability are lacking. Figure 6.1 provides a schematic representation of all these components with reference toa typical building with a steel braced skeleton. due to the strong competition among different structural materials. Eurocode 3. The design approach is generally based on hypotheses which reduce the scheme of the building to systems composed of bi-dimensional skeleton frames. 1992.1. Schematic of a typical building with a steel braced skeleton. Beam-to-column joints are traditionally considered hinges or rigid joints and the design is thus based on the simplified model of simple and rigid frames respectively. _ _- r ^^ Sprayed fire protection 6. The stractural response is the final result of the interaction between the bare frame and the 'non stractural elements' . This condition is clearly reflected by recent stractural Codes [AISC-LRDF. The relationship existing between the degree of refinement of the model adopted and the performance required of the model is clearly recognized for ultimate limit states. *. Column protection concrete Bracing system cladding Profiled composite decking . However. Eurocode 4. partitions and cladding). still based on the traditional design philosophy. 1986. .Structural modelling and calculation methods at serviceability load levels Steel frame buildings are complex spatial systems composed of linear elements (beams and columns) and plane elements (floors. diaphragms. the sophistica¬ tion of the computing tools nowadays available to the practising engineer has led to an increasing refinement of design analyses. which is more and more exploited. 68 . 1992].

with reference to steel and steel-con¬ crete composite frames. is aimed to evaluate the influence that the model used in the stractural analyses has on the frame response at the serviceability load levels. 69 .1 Numerical study The numerical study was performed using a finite element program [Poggi. The program enables analyses to be carried out which incorporate both geometric and material non-linearities. This situation is a heavy burden for the design. The approach allows a second order plastic zone analysis of partially restrained frames and the beam-to-column joints can be modelled as inelastic springs (figure 6. for which the current trend towards lighter systems makes serviceability increasingly important It underlines the significant imbalance in the de¬ sign quality for the ultimate conditions and for the serviceability conditions.2). A numerical analysis has been developed with the aim of focalizing the influence of the beam-to-column joints and the cladding action on the frame response.Ál "o A^A1 B == τ_ι B _) A A1 Β Β3 ϋ 6. All loads are increased proportionally through a common load multiplier ot up to collapse. The particularly efficient formulation adopted permits to model a beam and two attached joints by means of a single joint-beam element.2. Modelling of the beam-to column joints as inelastic springs.rigid rigid X χ «S tí tí £ s . An experimental study has also been performed with the aim of evaluating the interaction between shear and bending mo¬ ment on the joints in beams with partially restrained ends. The research work. The main details related to die design of the specimens and to their behaviour are then briefly presented. 1988]. carried out at the University of Trento (in the framework of the ECSC research programme focussing on the static deflection of steel framed build¬ ings). 6. the finite dimensions of the joint are token into account via me rigid end element m tË W γΦγΚ Ιρ % .

Different load conditions. frame Β with a system to pre¬ vent horizontal displacements. are considered in accordance to Eurocode 3. / / ¥ _=_.1 (1/10) in order to cover a wide range of practical applications. (c) the joint action and (d) the cladding action. a. functions of the parameter β (ratio between the horizontal force and tibe total vertical load for each storey). The choice of these profiles is related to a 'strong beam-weak column' design approach. (b) the load conditions. C"*"»*·"6 ACTION aF mffm. b. o -o TRUSS SniOTATDJG °F . due to residual stresses and mechanical tolerances.3. As reported in figure 6. meanwhile each storey of the structure is stressed by a horizontal force simulating wind action. . were considered: frame A (one span and three storeys) and frame Β (three spans and two storeys). Two different types of bi-dimensional sway frames.The numerical study of the behaviour of semi-continuous steel frames was focussed on the parameters: (a) the type of the steel frame. FRAME Β 1p= frame imperfection BEAMS : IPE 330 IFRAME A| according to EC3 COLUMNS : BE 180 Β SWAY PRAMF NO-SWAY FRÃMRI I FRAME Al I FRAME Bl I FRAME Bll 6.. which can be thought as cut off from spatial stractures. Cross- sections for the elements are HE 180 Β and IPE 330 for columns and beams re¬ spectively.0 kN/m). Each span of the frame is loaded with an uniform vertical load q (equal to 40. Some prelimi¬ nary analyses were performed on the frame Β 1. The value of β ranges from 0. were considerd.0125 (1/80) to 0.3. 70 . Γπττττττπ IIIHHIIB y y ^_tq g. ι "ι ι gq cFlU_l_____| aPliiniiiiinlifmiiiiuliiiiiiiiui y y aF |H____3 1 -b _. two different types of bi-dimensional sway frames. Le. Initial imperfections in the frames.immun.

: . 1988. Full Fun strength m strength Mpl. Cosenza et al. i. The behaviour of the beam-to-column semi-rigid joints was taken into account via a non linear rotational spring in order to take into account the stiffness and strength. simulated via a non-linear rotational spring. The claddings action is simulated through a truss element in tension [Liauw. Current knowledge enables us to develop procedures for the design of semi-continuous frames as indicated by recent European and American Codes. it has been pointed out that this type of connection has a great influence on the response of steel frames.2 Joint action and frame response General The traditional design of steel frames assumes that connections behave according to the ideal models of hinge and rigid joints. maximum horizontal storey displacement < h/300 (h is the height of the storey) H/500 and h/300). 1988: non-linear analysis].8 1. i.ti- r Partial strength 0. 1988: linear analysis.2 1.8 1. 71 . which realistically permit an explicit frame design based on the effective characteristic of the joints.4 1.e. . Nevertheless.4- Semi rigid s<¡mi-rigid 0 Flexible Pinned 0. The column base joints were considered fixed joints. The ideal cases of hinge and rigid joint were consid¬ ered in order to make comparisons between the response of the ideal frame and the re- sponse of the frame with semi-rigid joints respectively. using the more realistic model of semi-rigid joint [Eurocode 3.Bd 1 0· / Rigid Partial strength 0. Comparison of the results of the analyses performed is made referring to the service load levels and assuming the serviceability limits given by Eurocode 3. was investigated considering partial strength joints characterized by different degrees of stiffness and bending capacity. AISC-LRFD 1986].2· C te -Flexible Pinned 0.8- U. Eurocode 4. c. Cosenza et al. the equivalence has been established only in elastic field.4 0..2 0. Nethercot and __andonini.2 0.6 0. 1992.0 1. maximum horizontal displacements < H/500 (H is the total height of me frame).4 0.6 0. Classification of the joint in braced and unbraced frames.. 1992. due to experimental and numeri¬ cal studies into the behaviour of the beam-to-column joints which have been performed since 30's.2 1. d.4.e.4 Braced Frames Φ 0.0 1. 1988]. 1987.6 Unbraced Frame 5 Φ= JIbf_ LbMpLRd 6. Joint response and joint action in steel frames were investigated in the last decade [Anderson et al. 6. Joint action.

in order to simulate different load histories. In figure 6. . 1989].S. Twelve specimens composed of beams with par¬ tially restrained ends were appositely prepared (figure 6. the present study includes a limited series of beam tests with different end restraints.5). Specimen for testing flexible connections.4 the domains for the classification are reported for braced and un¬ braced frames respectively. experimental studies on shear force- bending moment interaction in flexible connections were carried out at the University of California-Berkeley [Astaneh and Nader. Effect of the shear on the rotational behaviour of the joints Usually the joint response is determined via the sole relation governing the rotational behaviour in the plane of the joint Recently. .The rotational response falls in the pinned region. The effect of the presence of the shear on Μ-Φ curves of flexible joints seems important Definitive conclusions require tests on full beam-joint subassem¬ blages. Due to the importance of joint action in order to achieve a realistic appraisal of the beam deflection in braced frames. The aim of this experimental analysis is to define the shear-moment interaction for sev¬ eral forms of flexible connections. _. The non dimensional Μ-Φ curve of the joint in the Eurocode domain for the classifica¬ tion can give three different cases: . The tests were performed on can¬ tilever beam models properly loaded at the free end. the moment of the joint is divided by the moment resis¬ tance of the beam and the the stiffness of the joint is divided by the stiffness of the beam. The cross section of the 72 .The rotational response falls in the semi-rigid region: it is necessary to use the model of the semi-continuous frame.' L = 6m .The rotational non-dimensional response of the joint falls in the rigid part In this case the rigid frame model cam be sufficiently accurate for stractural analysis and design. The simple frame model can be used. C 5m BEAM IPE 300 i = < 0 ( 2m 6.The approach used in the Eurocode 3 for the classification of the joint is based on the comparison between its characteristics (stiffness and strength) and the properties of the beam.

In particular for each series of tests.A rigid frame which tranforms the load of the hydraulic jacks in a concentrated load on the very stiff beam. -L 150» 150-15*18 -L 150xl50-xi5*18 57 L 100*100*6*10 L 100*100*6fl0 a) b) c) TOP & SEAT DOUBLE WEB TOP & SEAT ANGLE ANGLE ANGLE wrra DOUBLE WEB ANGLE 6. .beam is an IPE 300 profile having a span of 6 m.joints with top and seat angles. differing in the value of die distance i between the two applied forces F. Each of these frames is connected to a concrete block. The main mechanical and geometrical characteristics of the speciments are reported in table 6. the beam was loaded by two vertical forces. 73 .6) three different types of steel joints were considered: .1. Each of these can give a maximum load of 600 kN. (see figure 6. Two series of tests were performed: the first one was characterized by a distance between the load points equal to 2 m (6 specimens). . In order to sinrulate different shear/moment ratios at the joint two tests were conducted for each beam-joint configu¬ ration.joints with top and seat angles with double web angles.Circular hollow elements connecting the vertical elements of the triangular frames. The end re¬ straints of the beams have been connected to vertical elements reproducing the case of very stiff columns.6.A couple of hydraulic jacks. in one this distance was 5 m (6 specimens). .A very stiff beam used in order to apply the load at two load points corresponding to interaxes of 2 and 5 m. a value of length currently used in practice applications.joints with double web angles. . . Details of the three different types of steel joints tested.5) is composed of triangular frames to which are fixed very stiff columns. The testing apparatus (see figure 6. Two different angle thicknesses were adopted for each type of joint appraising the in¬ fluence of this parameter on the joint stiffness. .

4 16.4 307 280 8 4 PB2W10 2 10.4 18.6 324 280 8 8 PB5TSW9 5 8.Table 6. Main mechanical and geometrical characteristics of the specimens.4 307 308 280 16 12 PB5TSW10 5 10. 18.4 308 280 8 8 PB5TS18 5 .4 317 280 8 4 PB5TS16 5 16.9 Load dis web top & seat web an top & seat tance i angle angles gles angles beam column beam Test (m) ι (mm) (mm) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) side side PB2W9 2 8.4 317 280 8 4 PB2TS16 2 16. with failure stress of 1 130 N/mm2.4 18. Thickness Yield stress Bolts M20 10. 74 .7. Position of inductive transducers.6 317 324 280 16 12 PB5W9 5 8.1.9.6 324 280 8 8 PB2TSW9 2 8.4 _ 307 280 8 4 PB5W10 5 10.4 16.4 308 280 8 8 PB2TS18 2 18.4 307 308 280 16 12 PB2TSW10 2 10. |__- 6. Bolts M20 are nade of steel grade 10.6 317 324 280 16 12 L = 6m i F X j~_.

Under test PB2W10.8. modified in order to enable an analysis of beams loaded at two points. Inductive transducers were used. These transducers permit us to appraise the beam deflections and the main pa- rameters affecting the joint responses. Above: test PB2W9.04 ROWZIONE ( rod ) : 200. For each joint the straight lines associated with the ultimate limit state of bear¬ ing for web angle and for top and seat angle and bolt shear were considered with the serviceability deflection limit states of L/250 (figure 6.05 0.00 50.7. 175Λ7 ' 150.00 .1990] the response of the specimens was estimated.0178380. 75 .00 s_.0170410.04 0.03 0.4 mm and fy = 307 N/mm2. with t = 9. with t = 8. Also the beam-line design method [Zandonini and Zanon.01 0.8).02 0. 175. . 1991] has been used. According to the criteria reported in Eurocode 3 and to the rotational predic¬ tion methods for flexible connections [Chen and Kishi.01 0.0.The measuring system has been developed in order to appraise the main parameters af¬ fecting the behaviour of the specimens. In three cross-sections of each beams four electrical strain gages were positioned (a couple of strain guages on each flange of the beam).00 38. -00.08 ROTAZIONE ( rod ) 6.03 0.00 u I ' 1 1 II I II |[| | || I I I ll| Ι Ι ί I II I II| I I I I I I I I I jIi In 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I II I I I I 0. Twelve tests were performed and the phase of evaluation of the experimental data is in progress. 0.9 mm and fy = 317 N/mm2. according to the scheme reported in figure 6.71 ι ι ι ι ι ι ι ι Ι Μ ι ι ι ι ι ι ί Ι I I W I I I 0.87 ' 150.00 0.00 .es 50. Test results.

200. 150. 350. 150 and 190 kN. 100. PB2TS16: tests on beam with end connections composed of top and seat angles. This last cycle is very close to the collapse of the specimen (figure 6. PB2TSW10: tests on beam with end connections composed of web and top and seat angles. The specimen was loaded with three cycles performed at the load levels of 50. 100. The specimen was loaded with three cycles performed at the load levels of 50. PB5W10: tests on beam with end connections composed of web angles. 350.14). 200. The specimen was loaded with three cycles performed at the load levels of 50. 13). 100. 100. 250. 150. The specimen was loaded with three cycles performed at thé load levels of 50. 100. the load points close to the connections). 200 and 240 kN (figure 6. 150. 100 and 190 kN. In these tests the collapse of the specimens was due a beam mechanism. 150. PB2W10: tests on beam with end connections composed of web angles. PB2TSW9: with end connections composed of web and top and seat tests on beam angles.12). The specimen was loaded with three cycles performed at the load levels of 50. 400. The first series of tests was characterized by a distance between the load points equal to two metres. The specimen was loaded with three cycles performed at the load levels of 50. The specimen was loaded with three cycles performed at the load levels of 50. In these tests the collapse of the specimens was due a instability of the web panel of the beam in the zone between the connection and the load point PB5W9: tests on beam with end connections composed of web angles. 16).9). The specimen was loaded with three cycles performed at the load levels of 50. 200 and 240 kN (figure 6. 76 .15).e. A short summary about these tests is briefly presented here. 100. PB2W9: tests on beam with end connections composed of web angles. 10). 400 and 450 kN (figure 6. PB2TS18: tests on beam with end connections composed of top and seat angles. 300. The second series of tests was characterized by a distance between the load points equal to five metres (i. 250. This last cycle is very close to the collapse of the specimen (figure 6. 200 and 250 kN (figure 6. the joints were characterized by a rotational ductility sufficient to activate a plastic hinge in the midspan of the beam.11). 300.In each test some cycles Goading the specimen to a prefixed level of load and then un¬ loading until the zero value of the load was achieved) were performed before the col¬ lapse of the specimen. 450 and 500 kN. 150. 200 and 250 kN (figure 6. 150. This last cycle is very close to the collapse of the specimen (figure 6. 100.

21.6. fixed experimental simpty support K ss _ 4. Load/deflection cycle oftest PB2W10.3 kN/mm 40 50 -SUCTION (mm) 6.6 kN/mm Kf = 21. 77 .1 1.1 kN/mm K exp. -7. /fixed 'experimental simply supported K ss . = 12.10.1 kN/mm Κ exp.6 kN/mm Kf = 21. Load/deflectiei cycle of test PB2TS16. .6 kN/mm 0 .4.6 kN/mm K f .9. 'so Κ ss = 4. o D¤RECnON (inri) 6. Load/deflection cycle ci test PB2W9.1 kN/mm Κ exp.5 kN/mm 30 40 MRECnON (mm) 6. experimental 250 ζ _ 200 CM O simply suppo < O ".

.4kN/mm 40 SO DERICTION (mm) 6.6 kN/mm K f -.1 kN/mm Kexp.4 kN/mm 40 DEFLECTION (mm) 6. Load/deflectic_ cycle of test PB2TSW9. fixed experimental simply supported K ss _ 4.21.15. 78 .1 kN/mm K exp.4. fixed experimental simply supported K ss ' . 300 + fixed / / experimental simply supported K ss .1 kN/mm K exp. 16.6 kN/mm K f = 21.12.3 kN/mm 30 DEFLECTION (mm) 6. Load/deflection cycle of test PB2TS W10.13.6 -N/mm K f -21. Load/deflection cycle ci test PB2TS18. = 12.4. 14. .

6 15.6 15. 300. 500 and 600 kN (figure 6. The specimen was loaded with three cycles performed at the load levels of 50.10106 Kf = stiffness of the fixed beam Kss = stiffness of the simply supported beam I-exp.7 63. 400.6 15. 550 and 650 kN (figure 6. 150. The specimen was loaded with three cycles performed at the load levels of 50.60 25. On the basis of these values.60-106 PB5TS18 5 210.70-106 PB5W10 5 210. 150.30-106 PB2TSW9 2 21.1 4.6 15.6 7.6 15.7 74.30 5. 350. 250.55-106 PB2W10 2 21.9 34.7 30.6 15.24106 PB5TS16 5 210. 250. 200.32-106 PB2TS16 2 21. 350. 250.40 51. 300. 300.50 3. 300.17).10106 PB5TSW10 5 210. 100. 500. 100. 400. 150. 200. The specimen was loaded with three cycles performed at the load levels of 50.2. A comparison between these values and the values related to the ideal cases of simple and fixed beams shows that the experimental elastic stiff¬ ness is very close to the ideal case of a fixed beam for all the specimens except the case of specimens with web connections.1 4. the stiffness of the connections has been evaluated and the values are reported in table 6.13 6. 200. 450.mid span deflection in elastic and plastic range. 500. PB5TSW9: tests on beam with end connections composed of web and top and seat angles. PB5TSW10: tests on beam with end connections composed of web and top and seat angles.50-106 PB2TSW10 2 21.6 6.7 28. 350. = stiffness of the joint 79 .6 1630 66. 400. = experimental stiffness of the beam K.1 4. For each test the stiffness values related to the relationship load. 400. Stiffness of the tested connections. 100.50·106 PB5TSW9 5 210. 100. 550 and 650 kN (figure 6.98 5.51 26. 500 and 600 kN (figure 6.6 15.1 4. Test Load distance i (m) (kN/mm) (kN/mm) (kN/mm) (kNmm/rad) PB2W9 2 21.7 62. Table 62.20).1 4. 150.6 12. 19).40 24.40 24.60 25.30-106 PB5W9 5 210.7 64.18). 250. 350.1 4.PB5TS 16: tests on beam with end connections composed of top and seat angles. Stiffness Kf Kss Kexp.6 12. PB5TS18: tests on beam with end connections composed of top and seat angles.50-106 PB2TS18 2 21. 450. 200. The specimen was loaded with three cycles performed at the load levels of 50.

6 kN/mm K exp: .13 kN/mm 15 20 25 DEFLECTION (mm) 6. fixed experimental simply supported Kss = 15.28. Load/deflection cycle of test PB5W10. 62. 80 . fixed experimental 700 - 600 supported 500 40p -f 300 K ss = 15. fixed experimental simply supported Kss = 15.7 kN/mm K f = 210. Load/deflecti(Hi cycle of test PB5W9.98 kN/mm 20 25 OBJECTION ImnO 6.16. = 30.6 kN/mm K exp. 210.6 kN/mm K exp.7 kN/mm K f = 210.4 kN/mm 20 25 DEFLECTION (mm) 6. . Load/deflection cycle of test PB5TS16.15.17.7 kN/mm K f .

800 -- /fixed experimental 700 600 simply supported _ 500 CM O < 2 *oo < Kss = 15.6 kN/mm K exp. O O 400 Kss .7 kN/mm g 300 Kf = 210.6 kN/mm 200 20 25 DEFLECTION (mm) 6. ..15. Load/deflection cycle oftest PB5TS18.6 kN/mm 200 K exp. 800 700 300 -· K wc. 64. Load/deflection cycle of test PB5TS W10.7 kN/mm 200 -· K inc.18.63.210.20. .9 kN/mm : 100 O 15 20 25 DEFLECTION (mm) 6. . = 74.15.6 kN/mm 100 ICjptrim.19. 81 .7 kN/mm O 300 K1 = 210. experimenta) simply supported £ 500 u. Load/deflection cycle of test PB5TSW9.51 kN/mra 20 25 raCClAtn-d 6.

23 are related to the domain for a no-sway frame.06 0.08 0.04 0. The numerical analyses performed on the frame Β 1 (see 6.JS Φ 6.1 0. as it appears from table 6. Figures 6. M-F curves for specimens PB2..21 and 6.24 are related to the domain for a sway frame.21.1 O.2.14 0. 82 .18 0.RIGID o 0 0. These first data show that the influence of the joint characteristics is non neglegible also in cases of joints traditionally considered as hinge (web angles joints).. It is possible to observe that the joint are classified as semi-rigid or rigid. in a no-sway hame. in a sway frame. M-F curves for specimens PB2.05 0..The values shown in table 6. m 1. figures 6. m PB2TSW10/ / PB2TSW9 P62TS16 P82TS18 RIGID SEMI .2 have been put in non dimensional form according to the EC3 criteria for the classification of the joints.18 0.22.02 0..RIGID o : 0 0. The influence of the shear on the rotational characteristics of the joints in elastic phase is hon neglegible.22 and 6.12 0.2 Φ 6.3) on the other hand confirm this influence on the serviceability level of the frame.2 - P82TSWlo/ /P82TSW9 PB2TS16 PB2TS18 RIGID SEMI .

25 in non-dimensional form.23. 1991].. in a no-sway frame. The Μ-Φ curves.16 0.14 0. m 1. joint JT13: is defined as semi-rigid joint for both stiffness and strength [Davison.12 0.06 0. according to the EC3 criteria for joint classification... et al. M-F curves for specimens PB5..RIGID PBSW9 0. joint JT12: is characterized by an initial stiffness in the semi-rigid range and a bending capacity in the hinge domain [Davison. joint EPB1-1: the initial stiffness is in the rigid domain but the inelastic response is in the domain of the semi-rigid joints [Bernuzzi. M-F curves for specimens PB5.RIGID 0.. 1990]. et al.02 0. et al.15 Φ 6. It is possible to observe that: joint S 1 : is classified as a hinge for both rotational stiffness and bending capacity [Davison..18 Φ 6. 83 . 1987].04 0. m PB5TSW10/ P85TSWS / PB5TS16 RIGID P8SWI Ρ BS WS SEMI . deduced from experimental studies. are presented in figure 6..2 PB5TS18 P8STSW10 PBSTSWS P8STS16 RIGID reswto SEMI . in a sway frame. 1987]. et al.1 0.08 0..24. Joints considered in the numerical study The joints considered in this numerical research were chosen in order to cover a wide range of stiffness and strength values.

JT13 and EC3 U. The cases of rigid joints and hinges are respectively represented by the vertical and horizontal axis in this non-dimensional domain.The joint action on the semi-continuous frame.The minimum values of the shear stiffness required to the cladding panels in order to satisfy the serviceability limits of Eurocode 3.B.3 Joint action and frame performance in service Prior to the numerical research into the response of the serviceability loads of sway frames.. 1st and 2nd order analysis) on the consid¬ ered frames in the case of simple and rigid frames. Joints characterized by the Μ-Φ law boundary between rigid and semi-rigid domain and semi-rigid and hinge domain. The service load multiplier otg was considered by dividing thé ultimate load multiplier Ou by the factor 1.B.e.43)..2 1.8 1. upper bound (EC3 U.B. i. .26): 84 . .43 according to plastic design criteria. Considering the joint action (ccsj = ocuj/1. the EC3 limit.The influence of the order analysis (Le. Elasto-plastic analyses were performed considering the simple frame and semicontinuous frames with semi¬ rigid joints: SI. 6. The results of the analysyse performed have been organized in order to appraise and evaluate: . it is possi¬ ble to observe a substantial increase in the serviceability load multiplier (figure 6.B. shows that all the correspondenting vertical displacements δ are lower than Lb/250. The serviceability load multiplier.43. defined by considering the case of the simple frame: otsji = ctu/1. . EC3 L.4 0.) domain for semi-rigid joints were also considered in the numeri¬ cal study. m=M/MP)b Lb=5m LOWER BOUND 'SI 0.) and lower bound of the EC3 (EC3 L. The aim of this study was to evaluate the joint action in the case of braced frames.6 2. Μ-Φ curves deduced from experimental studies.The influence of the model adopted in the design of the stractural response consid¬ ering a cladding system composed of metal sheeting. some analyses were performed on no-sway frame Β 1.0 0 = 0EIb/(LbMp>b) 625.

Frames with joint EC3 L. in fact. For higher values of β the collapse mechanism is due in all the consid¬ ered cases to the panel mechanism and the differences in the -V curves are due only to the second order effects. in figure 6.0125. Relation between the service load multiplier α and the deflection δ in ñame Β 1. 10 20 626. have a serviceability load 25% greater than the value related to the simple frame. The incremental analyses were performed till the collapse of the frame was achieved and the results have been evaluated considering the load multiplier α versus the maximum horizontal displacement V. EC3 Ü. between the 1st and the 2nd order re¬ sponse. decreasing with the increase of β.B. It is possible to observe the strong influence of 2nd order effects. First and second order analyses were performed considering only the ideal cases of simple and rigid frames. the differences. Simple frame. different from the 2nd order one. This underlies the important rule played by the geometric noh-linearities. The numerical study into the response of sway frames was at first devoted to apprais¬ ing the influence of the order of the elasto-plastic analysis on the response of the con¬ sidered frames. Frames with joint EC3 U. It is possible to observe a tangi¬ ble difference.27 the -V response of frames Β is presented for the two different types of analysis and for β equal to 0. 85 . In fact.B. are more than 50% for β = 0. have a serviceability load that is 78% greater than the value related to me simple frame. with the smaller value of β the 1st order curve shows a strictly linear trend.0125 progressively de¬ creasing with the increase of me β parameter.B. in the first case the collapse is achieved wim the formation of the plastic hinge in the midspan of the beams (beam mechanism) while in the other case it is due to plastic hinges on the column ends due to geometrical effects (panel mechanism). in order to evaluate the bounds of variability for the semi¬ rigid joints.

0125). -V response of frames A for two different types of analysis (β = 0.Ö - a a 1 ORDER Π ORDER 1. The analysis of the collapse mechanisms shows that in the case of first order analysis. V [mm] ì 100 200 30 6.10. Here the trend of the curves is non dependent by the order of the analysis and the rigid frame seems less sensitive to the type of analysis.29 the -V curves of frames A and Β are pre¬ sented for the two different types of analysis and for β equal to 0. 86 . Rigid frame.5 - Γ ¿ Or Λ » HINGE /S-0. The differ¬ ences between the displacement at the same load levels of the two types of analysis are slighter with reference to the simple frame analysis with a range of 10% to 14% for frame A and of 6% to 10% for frame B.28.10 V[mm] 0 0 100 200 300 6.0 ¡FRAME Al V RIGID JOINTS 0.0125 . In the second order anal¬ ysis the collapse is due to the interaction between instability and plasticity.10).0125 and to the mixed mechanism for higher values of β. -V response of frames B for two different types of analysis (β = 0. 1. In figures 6. collapse is due to the beam mechanism for β equal to 0. 1.5 j?=0.27.5: a I 0EDER Π ORDER 1.0 - L_______Ű V 0.28 and 6.

Type of ideal joint assumed in the traditional design (i. These preliminary analyses have shown that the considered frames are very sensitive to the second order effects. The term Osj is related to the semi-continuous frame. . The Μ. 87 .) or rigid joints (EPB1-1. The service load multipliers considered in this part of the study were referred to the ideal cases of simple frame α^ (= α/1.0 "ïfftR vSTC *ΪΑ5Γ 0. on the other hand.5 [3=0.e.5 a Π ORDER IfRAMË Bl 1. at least for joint JT13 and EPB1-1. EC3 L.) on the basis of the type of the joint.e. I ORDER 1. . the behaviour of the joint was taken into account by a rotational spring characterized by a multilinear Μ-Φ law. JT12. as.0 V [mm] 0 100 200 300 6.Load condition ß(=F/qLb).25 shown.43.3).43).Φ non-dimensional curves in figure 6. hinge or rigid joint) in order to evaluate the differences between the traditional design (based on simplified models) and the design of the semi-continuous frame. it seems necessary also to evaluate the geometric non-linearity and the results here presented are mainly related to second order elasto-plastic analyses.10 RIGID JOINTS 0.B.29. As was previously mentioned.Frame type (frame A or frame B. Due to the slenderness.B.10). in figure 6. The analyses were performed untili collapse was achieved and the results are here or- ganized on the basis of the following criteria: . -V response of frames B for two different types of analysis (β = 0. EC3 Ü.j is defined as a j divided by 1. The joints considered in the part of the numerical study aimed at appraising the joint action are usually classified as hinge (joints SI. This permits to fit the exper¬ imental curve with a satisfactory degree of accuracy. the semi-rigid model could be adopted.. i. that in all these cases joints are characterized by non neglegible stiffness and strength and.43) and rigid frame (α^ (= aUjI/1. JT13.

* ψ.0 /50p V [mm] 0.5 JT12 SI 1. 88 .0 0.0125 1.30 and 6. -*.33 they are related to the load condition with the higher value of β. V RIGID 2.31 the responses of the frame are reported for the lower value of ß.0125).0 IFRAM.RIGID 2.In figures 6.B. characterized by the initial stiffness in the semi-rigid zone of the ËC3 domain and by a low bending capacity (no greater titan 15% of the plastic mo¬ ment of the beam) the frame modelled as semi-continuous results more rigid than the simple frame. the accurancy of the analysis can be im¬ proved by taking into account the actual behaviour of the joint a 3.0 JT13 β =0.JTIO -*.30.0125 O-S-r 3~_ΒΤ 1. 3. -Γ-0Τ12 2.HINGE -f.0 100 200 300 400 6.EC3 LB.5 EPB l-l V.0 IFRAME Al «S-r V 1. It suggests that in these cases. in figures 6.32 and 6.5 «SA 0.0125).e.0 -o. Χ % Ζ tl ¡c . The influence of die joint action on the frame response is non-neglegible.5 |-g=0. SI -0. i. 2.B.0 50 100 150 200 250 6. in the case of joints SI and JT12. joints classified. as hinge for strength or stiffness.0 HINGE tt:SA 0. Response of unsheeted frame A for the lower value of β (·= 0.Bl EC3 U. according to EC3 criteria. Response of unsheeted frame Β for the lower value of β (= 0.31.5 h/soo V [mm] 0.EC3 U.5 -ft.

B law are practically coincident This confirms the fact that when the Μ-Φ law of me joint is in the rigid zone of the domain for the classification. 1. ß=0M JT12 0. the simplified model of rigid frame can be assumed in the structural analysis.10).5 HINGE a« 0.o V [mm] 100 200 300 400 500 600 6. V RIGID EPB 1-1 1. Response óf unsheeted frame Β for the higher value of β (= 0.5 a IFRAME Bl RIGID EPB 1-1 EC3 Ü. The responses of the rigid frame and of the frame with joints characterized by the EC3 U. neglecting the actual behaviour ofthejoint The service multiplier.32.5 a I FRAME Al EC3 U.33.0 α«* JT13 EC3 LB. JT13 1.10 si 0. previously defined.B. 1. These parameters were determined by incorporating the 'actual' joint behaviour. and the sway indexes H/V (where Η is the total height of the frame and V is the maximum horizontal displacement at the servece- ability level) enable the characterization of the tha frame responses.B. 89 . Response of unsheeted frame A for the higher value of β (= 0. and the sway indexes were evaluated for the service loads corresponding to the ideal case.5 Sl as HINGE H/600 o.0 EC3 LB. «Sx JT12 /g=0.0 /500 V[mml 0 100 200 300 6.10).

00 259 257 1.00 566 1 EC3 U.22 1.06 2.00 48 SI 1 71 0.15 2.00 1. at S.93 323 rigid 259 1.00 60 1 81 1. The ultimate frame strength also improves remark¬ ably.58 188 511 0.I. the ratio between the sway index of ideal frame over the sway index of semi-continuous frames. 214 0.h S.· aj cts.30 1. Table 6.23 328 hinge 39 1.32 0.I. 662 1.35 0.00 39 51 1.22 1. Lateral drift without cladding (SX = Sway Index = ΗΛΟ.06 3. however.00 1. hence higher service loads might be admissible (Ogj). 185 1.00 1.31 69 JT12 347 0. at S. However the recognition of the semi-rigid behaviour of joint EPBl-1 implies a remarkable in¬ crease in the flexibility of the frame model.00 677 1 566 1.j | Cts.15 0. for frame A and frame B. 266 0.02 483 80 EPBl-1 308 2. since extended end plate 90 .42 1.36 41 109 0.01 656 508 1.00 51 SI 1 56 0. Frame stiffness. 251 1.00 1.56 128 rigid 677 1.15 1. Frame response is far less sensitive to a variation in joint flexibility witii respect to the rigid model.02 243 20 EPBl-1 197 1.B.03 1.03 1.09 2.98 204 190 1.33 163 368 0.h Oh SX at Joint β Cts.09 141 450 0.59 77 267 0.35 117 JT12 655 0.h CÇh S.3.00 1.00 1.28 91 JT13 599 0.I.99 175 The degree of continuity provided even by the most flexible connections substantially increases the stiffness of the frame (up to 30 times for frame A and to 42 times for frame Β with β equal to 0.25 0.00 1.B.03 1.I.3 which shows.0125.11 2.02 217 250 1.93 106 328 0.25 3.I. This applies to both ultimate strength and stiffness in service.00 1.19 0.09 2.94 126 20 EC3 LB.43 195 80 EC3 LB.98 196 rigid 1 192 1.94 135 549 0.00 257 1 EC3 U.j hinge 60 1.94 175 1 172 1.03 2.00 197 EC3 U.43 118 195 0.70 1.16 2.00 1.16 1.69 265 327 0. the increment of the service load with respect to the ideal case and the sway index of the semi-continu¬ ous frame.00 183 1 192 1.10 2.09 1.99 295 271 2.00 81 SI 1 203 0.00 1.B.I.25 2. is not sufficient to allow this potential increase of resistance to be fully exploited (see die values of the sway index determined at Osj).J «j as.31 56 JT12 387 0.48 1.I.44 161 hinge 34 1.58 1.01 190 10 EPBl-1 154 1.0125).68 277 JT13 1784 0.23 110 JT13 645 0.00 1.B. at D S.20 2.h S. the sway index for the ideal case.00 1.00 192 I 197 1.89 106 10 EC3 L. 583 0.11 2.00 34 48 1.03 1.11 1.72 89 208 0.09 0.09 136 234 0.04 1.47 1.The significant influence of joint action is also apparent from table 6. Rame A | Frame Β S.33 44 83 0. An appraisal of frame performance in service based on this model would lead to the frame being regarded as inadeguate for β equal to 0.

in the US. 91 . At me end of mis chapter some tests related to different types of cladding are presented organized as a data-bank in data sheets where the main characteristics of the specimens are illustrated. joints are traditionally considered 'rigid' and frames accepted in the past on the basis of rigid frame analysis would be rejected now if joint action is incorporated in die design analysis. Numerical studies. One of these methods was developed for panels of steel sheeting and it is briefly presented in the next section of this paragraph [Bryan. tested in different researches. The earlier studies into the behaviour of infilled frames were made in the UK.4 Cladding action General Cladding panels are considered non-structural elements and. The results of experimental studies can be directly used in design analysis only if the specimen is coincident to the cladding panels of the frame (same sizes or same height/width ratio and same type of connections to the beams and/Or to the columns). 1978] of the panels as well as the mechanical characteristics of the connections between the cladding and the frame skeleton. 1953. Benjamin and William. 6. they are generally neglected in the design of the skeleton frame. On the other hand. This prevents from a direct comparison between the responses of cladding different only for the sizes. as previously reported. it is possible to take into account the cladding action via very simple elements (trusses or systems made up of trusses) which are able to re¬ produce the response of these 'non-stractural' elements. and in the URSS [Thomas. about the loading histories and to the measuring arrangement have been established. predicting the response of the cladding panels on the basis of the geometri¬ cal andmechanical characteristics. They result very usefull for the de¬ sign phase. Experimental and numerical research was conducted in the past into different forms of cladding panels. their contributions to the stiffness and strength of steel frames has been recognised and intensively investigated in the last decades from many authors. Tests were performed in order to evaluate the shear stiffness and the strength [Wood. On the basis of these studies some methods for the prediction of the behaviour and of the strength of the cladding have been developed. Polyakov. A simple procedure to extrapolate these exper¬ imentais results to systems characterized by different length/width ratio is presented in the last section of this paragraph. An application was performed in order to assess the influence of the tiiickness of the coils on the response of the panel. I960]. evaluated the influence both of the height/width ratio and also of the openings (due to windows and doors) on the response and mechanical properties of the panel. 1957. It appears that no rules related about the sizes of the specimens. This improves the degree of reliability of the analysis and of the design. 1972]. on the other hand.

34).e. 92 .4. The cross section of the cladding is a syimmetric one whose height is equal to 55 mm and the connection is composed of 8 self-tapping screws for the panel-to-column joint n^ = 8. Referring to the frames A and B. the shear flexibility of the panel. If the end-gables or the stiffened internal partition exceed 4 times the width for rectan¬ gular roof buildings and 2. composed of 6 rows (nsn = 6) of three steel sheetings of 0.sheeting directly fastened to the purlins.end gables of the frame cross-braced or sheeted.34).36.sheeting rails and side laps of adjacent sheets firmly stitched. . . The method makes three contributions to the total cladding flexibility c: the flexibility due to the sheet deformation (ci). It should be noticed.35. The slip s (between me panel and the frame skeleton) can be determined only by considering the experimental curve shear load-displacement for the fastener. is based on the following hypotiiesis: . that there are two possible cases to con¬ sider: case 1: sheeting fixed to purlins and shear connectors. .presence of shear connectors. while the symbology of these equations is presented in table 6. (see figure 6.The Bryan method for panels of steel sheeting The method developed by Bryan to predict the elastic response of panels of metal sheeting (figure 6. case 2: sheeting fixed to purlins only. would apply to the analysis of existing struc¬ tures. The value of K is then determined by considering the 4q/d and h/d ratios relevant to the fastening frequency of sheetings.35).9 m of width with six seam fasteners per side laps (ns = 6) which are about 80 mm. the flexibility due to the sheet fasteners (C2) and the flexibility (03) due to the purlin/rafter connection. it has been considered a cladding panel with a width of 4 m and a lenght of 5 m (figure 6. The equations to calculate the shear flexibility c of cladding are shown in figure 6.6 mm and to 1.5 for pitched ones. Cases with thickness equal to 0. would normally apply to the design of new structures. Each sheeting is characterized by a constant K evaluated on the basis of a computer procedure developed by Mohsin and Bryan: its value can be found by approximating the equivalent rectangular corrugation as shown in figure 6.. A correction factor f depends on the number of intermediate purlins or beams and it is correlated with the strain energy. this method can not be applied (as the suggested frames are single storey or no more than than two or three storeys only if do not arise instability problems). An application of this method has been developed in order to appraise the influence of the thickness of the steel panel on the value of shear flexibility. about the flexiblity due to sheet fasteners C2. i.5 mm were consid¬ ered applying this method.

34. 93 . = 80 mm 6. Seam or sidelamp fasteners Sheet- connector Sheet purlin fastners connection \a Intermediate purlin ^\^^ connector \ Rafter * Edge purlin 6. Arrangement of panel sheeting.35. Equivalent rectangular comigaüon for metal sheeting. ® ns = 6 a=5Q00 mm χ nsc = 8 b =4000 mm np = 4 _^~L ρ = d-6 = 900=>(pnsh)-a side lap = 5 = 400 joint for side lap = ^. used by Monsin and Bryan.

used in figure 6.4.»-iws/n. length of shear panel (± to direction of sheet) mm A cross sectional area of edge member (± to direction of span of sheet) mm2 b depth of shear panel (// to direction of span of sheet) mm c overall shear flexibility of panel mm/kN d pitch of corrugation mm E modulus of elasticity (= 207 kN/mm2 for steel) kN/mm2 f correction factor to allow for intermediate purlins h height of corrugation mm K sheeting constant I width of crest of corrugation mm np number of purlins ns number of seam fasteners per side lap nsc number of sheet/connector fastenen.) · (1+2-h/d) (1+n) / (Etb) [mm/kN] FLEX.3 SHEET/PURUN FASTENER Case(l) c. per rafter nsh number of sheet widths per panel Ρ pitch of sheet/purlin fasteners mm s slip per sheet/purlin fastener per unit load mm/kN SS slip per seam fastener per unit load mm/kN ssc slip per sheet/connector festener per unit load mm/kN spr top movement of purlin relative to rafter per unit load mm/kN t sheet thickness mm V Poisson's ratio (= 025 for steel) c-ci*C2*C3 Flexibility cf .36.2 + C2.3 FLEX. 94 .Table 6. = 2·& / iw [mm/kN] Flexibility 03 . = (2à3 f..= (ru*-D-s«/i-u [mm/kN] Case (2) c.Sheet fasteners C2 = C2.. Shear flexibility of a panel. a .1 + C2. OUE TO SHEAR STRAIN IN THE SHEET ci ? = (2-a-f.Sheet deformation j C1=C1_1+C1_2 + C1. . OUE TO AXIAL STRAIN IN PURLINS c-t -. = (2-a-s-p·«/^ [mm/kN] Case (2) c.iMr2»/a:i [mm/kN] SEAM FASTENER Cased) c. (0. DUE TO SHEET DISTORSION Cu. Symbology of the equations.K) / (Et3 b3) [mm/kN] FLEX.Purlin/rafter connection C3 =2-s/ n [mm/KN] 6.) / O-b^A-E) fmm/kN] Flexibility C2 .i = (2-s-pW6np--+a.144ad«f.36. [mm/kN] SHEET/CONNECTOR FASTENERS Case (1) c.

1.5.1.1969 mm/kN seam fasteners c.6 mm Poisson's ratio (= 0. Main steps related to the application of the Bryan method for metal sheeting with a low thickness of 0. Table 6.7.35 mm/kN sheet thickness t 0.1 0.2. respectively.3 0.25 for steel) ni 0.5760 mm/kN SHEAR ELEXffiDJTY c = cl + c2 4.0047 mm/kN SHEET DEFORMATION el 4.5.1 4.2 0.6 mm.6 and 6.0503 mm/kN axial strain in purlins c.2.2.The data related to die metal sheeting are reported in die table 6.0875 mm/kN SHEET FASTENERS c.2584 mm/kN sheet/purlin fastener c. cladding width a 5000 mm cross sectional area A 5400 mm2 cladding height b 4000 mm pitch of corrugation d 150 mm modulus of elasticity E 207 kN/mm2 correction factor to allow for intermediate purlins f 1 _ height of corrugation h 75 mm sheeting constant (1/1) K 33 - equivalent width of crest corrugation feq 75 mm number of purlins np 4 - number of seam fasteners per side lap ns 6 - number of sheet/connector fasteners per rafter nsc 8 - number of sheet widths per cladding nsh 6 - pitch of sheet/purlin fästenas Ρ 900 mm slip per sheet/purlin fastener per unit load s 0.5 - ά_ 14 mm h/d 0. d 150 mm d3 56.2 0.25 . j sheet distortion c. The main steps re¬ lated to the application of the method are illustrated in the tables 6.36666667 - Table 6.35 mm/kN slip per seam fastener per unit load SS 0.2035 mm/kN shear strain in the sheet c.5 mm d4 7 mm h 55 mm ¿eq 75 mm dl 89 mm V1 0.1.32154419 _d e 30.35 mm/kN slip per sheet/connector fastener per unit load ssc 0. Data related to the metal sheeting. calculated in table 6.3 0.2917 mm/kN sheet/connector fasteners c.2 0.6 and 6.8345 mm/kN 1 SHEAR STIFFNESS k=l/c 02068 mm/kN | 95 .7 for the lower and higher value of the thickness.7538545 mm I 61 mm teta 1.6.

0875 mm/kN SHEET FASTENERS C.2.7.l 0. and then the constant of steel sheeting K were calculated.2.5760 mm/kN SHEAR FI__<ffiI_rTY c = c.35 mm/kN slip per sheet/connector festener per unit load ssc 0.5).Table 6.35 mm/kN slip per seam fastener per unit load SS 0. the shear flexiblity was evaluated using the equations contained in figure 6.2883 mm/kN sheet/purlin fastener c.1 0.35 mm/kN sheet thickness t 1.2 0.25 - sheet distention c. me values of elastic shear stiffness related to the two considerd thickness.3 0. These hypotìieses are rarely satisfied.2 0.1.6 mm = 0.2 0.8644 mm/kN SHEAR STIFFNESS k=l/c 1. On the basis of these values.1.2917 mm/kN sheet/connector festeners c. cladding width a 5000 mm cross sectional area A 13500 mm2 cladding height b 4000 mm pitch of corrugation d 150 mm modulus of elasticity E 207 kN/mm2 correction factor to allow for intermediate purlins f 1 - height of corrugation h 55 mm sheeting constant (1/1) K 33 - equivalent width of crest corrugation 75 mm number of purlins np 4 - number of seam fästenas per side lap ns 6 - number of sheet/connector fasteners per rafter nsc 8 - number of sheet widths per cladding nsh 6 - pitch of sheet/purlin fasteners Ρ 900 mm slip per sheet/purlin fastener per unit load s 0.36.2.3 0.2 kN/mm and k^LSmm = 1. die experimental results related to die shear stiffness of cladding panels can be used in the design phases only if die H/B ratio and the connec¬ tion system are equal.2690 mm/kN shear strain in the sheet c. An approach aimed at al¬ lowing the use in elastic field of die experimental data in the case of different H/B ratio has been developed. Main steps related to the application of the Bryan method for metal sheeting with a high thickness of 1.1569 mm/kN First the equivalent width of die crest of corrugation (as it is shown in table 6. kt=o.0019 mm/kN SHEET DEFORMATION c.5 mm Poisson' s ratio (.0174 mm/kN axial strain in purlins c.1969 mm/kN seam festeners c.25 for steel) ni 0.1 0. The FEM method As was previously pointed out.0.1 kN/mm show the non neglegible influence of me thick¬ ness on Ae shear response in me elastic field.1. The procedure can be summarized in the following steps: 96 .l + c2 0.5 mm.

Finite element analyses of panels characterized by different H/B ratios in order to determine the elastic shear stiffness Kei versus me geometrical ratio H/B. Evaluation of the fictitious elastic (E) and tangent (G) modulus using approximate formulae. displacement in elastic range) evaluation of me shear elastic stiffness (s*/F*). On the basis of the results of the tests (i. using. Some details related to step (3) are shown: from the experimental study the elastic shear stiffness is defined. this value is then used in a first finite element analysis on the panels in elastic range. F*. 2.37. Iteration to find the appropriate value of E*. for example. it follows: 8F*H3+9F*B2 E*=- 24s*J As it appears in figure 6. An iterative procedure based on finite element analyses will give me values of E and G for me equivalence between the numerical and experimental stiffnesses. load applied to the panel and s*. 4. a change in the values of E and G and a hew anal¬ ysis are required until die two values are practically coincident starting value of E and G numerical analysis Check of the shear stiffness in elastic range Satisfied Stop 6. 1. Modelling die specimen using finite bi-dimensional element (plane stress element).37.e. In the case of lack of agreement between this numerical stiffness and the experimental ones. 97 .. the Airy theory with appropriate bound¬ ary conditions it is possible to estimate the elastic modulus E*: *_________ F*B2 S ~3E*J + 8GJ where: F* = applied force H =panelhigh Β =panel length J = inertia modulus With me hypothes that G =|-E*. 3.

consists of modelling cladding in the elastic field by an 'equivalent truss' [Mazzolani and Sylos Labini. c.38. The whole structure is designed so diat panels and frames together have to resist everykind of load. while the panel contribution is taken into account in the serviceability limit state only. which provides maximum economy in reduc¬ ing botii structural weight and manufacturing and erection cost. Here the cladding action is simulated with a system of elastic boundaries (axial springs in each storey).sizes ratio. 6. The truss action must be equivalent to die cladding action and to the relationship be¬ tween die area of die cross section of the truss and me shear flexibility of die cladding. 1990]. The cross sectional area of each truss is evaluated as appears from Figure 6. it would be possible to use bi-dimensional elements in non-linear ranges and to model the connection with non-linear springs which can take into account anelastic slips. which is very useful for me design of the frame taking into account the cladding action. As die bracing effect can be guaranteed by claddings.5 Modelling of cladding action and cladding action on the considered frames Modelling of the cladding panels The interaction between the frame skeleton and me cladding elements is fairly com¬ plex. 1985]. The frame resists only to vertical loads while horizontal forces caused by earth¬ quakes or wind are supported by cladding panels. The main structure is designed to resist vertical and horizontal loads. a. The degree of this interaction has been recognized as a primary factor affecting the frame response. followed in mis research. b. probably due to a lack of specific knowledge and experience. Some iterations (tiiree or four) are generally required in order to evaluate the fictitious values of E* and G* that make me panel equivalent (for elastic shear stiffness) to the specimen tested. The choice Of beam-to-column connections should be made according to me above design criteria: case (a) requires rigid connection and case (b) can accept semi-rigid joints connections. In spite of these advantages. examples of structures like type (c) are not used in seismic zones. These values are men used in finite element analyses on the same type of panel characterized by different H/B ratio (step 4% in order to produce the curve shear stiffness. when checking maximum sway and storey drifts. as it depends on me responses of these two systems as well as on the type of cladding-frame connection. Using the refined analysis programs. pin-ended connections also can be used in case (c). Anomer simplified approach. More simple approaches can be used in or¬ der to evaluate die cladding action in die elastic range [Anderson. Different models can be used in order to evaluate die cladding action on die frame de¬ sign. 1984]. Three different types of design ap¬ proaches are possible [Mazzolarli and Piluso. 98 .

- cosS cosa Ε·Α Ul = s-cosS . The dimension of the tested panel were equal to 3200x2640 mm. 1 Β 1 A= c E cos3 θ 6. On die basis of E and L it is possible to evaluate the cross sectional area A of die equivalent truss. 99 . As a joint between the truss and die frame it a perfect hinge is assumed. Cladding .=--- el c s .Truss equivalence L=- cos S F N= cos S NL ál Έ·Α ul--: . it was refered to die cladding type 1A. which brought out a dimension ratio H/B = 0.73. The truss simulating cladding action is in tension and frame A has di¬ agonal elements in every span while frame Β take mem only in die central one.38. Truss equivalent of cladding action. F Β 1 A=- s E cosJS Flexibility. The main results of diese tests are reported in the sheets contained at die end of titis chapter. The axial stiffness of this element (or its horizontal stiffness equiva¬ lent to the shear stiffness of the panel) was evaluated on die basis of an experimental study performed on a simple steel sheeting (see figure 6. Cladding action on the considered frames The cladding action on me frame response was evaluated using the model of the 'equivalent truss'. c = Stiffness: Κ .39).

when die displacement is about 25 mm. Considering die secant stiffness at this mo¬ ment. . .4 kN/mm was assumed.e.40 and die curve stiffness H/B ratio is in die figure 6. . an experimental value of kei = 5.e. . . A . Using for the equivalent truss a value of Young Modulus equal to 210 kN/mm2.8. the contemporaneous collapse of me rivets in the central row which cause a sensible re¬ duction of me load capacity of the panel. . The mesh is reported in the figure 6. SCREWS o «3 OJ 800 i B00 I 800 I 800 3200 mm 50|~ΤΑ .. The FEM approach was used in order to evaluate the shear stiffness of the cladding panel for frame A or Β which has H/B = 0. Masonry and concrete infills present significanüy higher stiffness. but it is only possible to appreciate a local bearing in relation to die number screws. cladding panels on each storey) or partial cladding (i. The stiffness of die equivalent diagonal truss has been evaluated according with the procedure presented in a previous paragraph.57 kN/mm. At the maximum load of 88 kN. even in die presence of openings. cladding on some storey of the frame). Structural analyses were performed with the aim of evaluate the influence of cladding action in two cases: full cladding (i. During dus first range of load. The load-displacement diagram underlines a non-linear behaviour un to a point of dis¬ continuity. Experimental test on simple steel sheeting. /\-4 shear force [kN] J 639.41. die panel don't change its geometrical char¬ acteristics. and it's value is k = 5. 100 . the cross sectional area of die truss outcomes as A = 169.9 mm2 which corresponds approximately to a steel plate of 10x17 mm.

600 0. percentage differences between lateral displace¬ ments at the service load level (related to die 2nd order analysis) are less tiian 10%.400 1.Í00 l.S00 1.000 1. These interactions between plasticity and geometrical non linearities are less evident than in the case of frames without claddings. Curve stiffness H/B ratio.200 1.400 0.*00 zooo (H/B) 6. Rearrangement of the mesh. 101 . 0. The collapse mechanism is a mixed one widi plastic hinges bom of beams and columns. On the other hand. rigid frames are characterized first by a linear (elastic) phase and then by a curvilinear (elastoplastic) one.40.41. Full Cladding First me influence of die geometrical non-linearity was evaluated on the cladding frame performing 1st and 2nd order analysis in the cases of simple and rigid frames. The simple frame case suggests mat the interaction between plasticity and instability is not fundamental for die collapse mechanism which is here due to a beam mechanism for each value of β. -I ί- U 400 500 6.

25 1617 1240 0.83 1378 1476 0.53 153 JT12 1633 0.00 1.11 610 665 1.74 284 334 1.41 296 1 EC3 U.28 471 826 0.26 508 280 1.43 149 rigid 1536 1.91 2.86 277 JT13 2490 0.B.99 266 hinge 1509 1.44 and 6.95 1.90 320 A great difference characterized the structural response of the sheeted frame with re¬ spect to die bare one.j hinge 3659 1. There are particularly differences in the collapse event between flexible and more rigid joints: when die rota¬ tional stiffness ios increased* the beam collapse mechanism changes to a mixed one (beam and column) due to die fact diat me load multiplier increases its value by consid¬ ering the frame as semi-continuous. 4013 0.36 221 rigid 506 1.h 2k SJ.98 1460 657 1.j as.02 326 10 EPBl-1 480 1.26 501 221 1.56 1440 1314 0.91 2.02 834 80 EPBl-1 1488 1.87 494 885 0. 490 1.03 1. Lateral drift with cladding (SJ. 1617 0.42.95 1333 1694 0.The first series of analyses considered each storey as 'stiffened' by die metal sheeting panel.81 4.05 1. 6. The linear behaviour of the '-v' curves (see figures 6.h a_ S J. at S.79 3.B.05 1. Frame A Frame Β SJ. de¬ termined for die hinged and for die rigid frame neglecting cladding action.00 3.07 1.B.00 2.74 271 326 1.91 3.45 253 1 1 874 0.06 1.84 152 10 EC3 LJ1.23 150 JT13 1881 0.80 1. the simple panel considered provides in many cases sufficient stiffness to make me ultimate limit state govern the design. 6.12 166 SI 1 1548 0.61 2.58 820 80 EC3 L.0125 and β = 0.99 2.34 0.03 0.97 657 rigid 674 1.01 1477 834 1.00 4.10). 2091 0.45) underlines tiiat frame response is mainly influenced by the initial rota¬ tional stiffness of me joint (both for β = 0.95 4.93 6.h Si.98 334 1 EC3 U.8. preventing instability effects in columns and so reducing tiieir sensitivity to 2nd order effects. drifts at die service load level ocsjj and ce^. at S.63 4.47 461 1081 0.19 256 665 0.92 5.36 281 JT12 2091 0.53 558 733 0.60 265 681 0.12 291 593 0.23 943 SI 1 3703 0.B.05 2483 1176 1.8.25 1.00 1.09 308 SI 1 2000 0.95 5.I.00 3.80 2. Moreover.00 1528 878 1.60 258 20 EC3 L. 630 1.75 816 JT13 4761 0. 102 .· «j «s. Table 6. vary only moderately with the type of joint (less man 30% difference between die frames with hinge and semi-rigid JT13 joints).99 3.B.43.44 280 20 EPBl-1 561 1.69 1.00 1.00 1.77 2. at Joint β as.83 771 hinge 1980 1. «j as. at SJ.00 2.46 826 JT12 4013 0.03 2. As it results from the table 6.75 2.95 3.74 259 320 1.00 1.91 2. Thus claddings grant a great stiffness to frames. = Sway Index = ΗΛΟ.03 1.79 4.04 1.26 533 296 1.00 1.I.20 1.90 1.52 326 541 1.80 6.06 878 1 EC3 U. 1490 1.h SJ.00 1.

Response of sheeted frame A for the lower value of β (= 0.5 Osa 0. V' fe -a κ v. '3. c 0.5 EPB 1-1 2. die maximum horizontal displacemen exceeds me limit Code (see table 6.10) still make serviceability limits critical.0125). 2nd order analysis would be required if the analysis were conducted on die frame skeleton incoporating die joint response.8).0 JT13 EC3 LB.B.0 β =0.0125 Η 500 V [mnι] 0. both frames A and Β comply with the limit ser¬ vice drift of H/500 (Code's values). for the rigid class of joints. 103 .0 HINGE r ösa -. - JT12 1. 3. enabling the designer to use a 1st Order analysis.5 I FRAME A V r?n RIGID EC3 U. JT12 1. Έ V. Fairly high horizontal forces (β = 0.0 α 2.B RIGID 2.0 0 10 23 30 6.42. Shear forces in the panel 'in service' are well widiin die elastic range of its response.43.0125). It is interesting to note that for joint EPBl-1. It should be also considered diat die stiff¬ ening action of cladding substantially reduces die geometrical (Ρ-δ) effects.5 Si: HINGE 1.0 a EC3 U.5 /S=0. EpB t_j 2. for each type of 'rigid' joints. at least for serviceability checks: lateral drifts determined by a 1st and 2nd Order analysis in fact differ less tiian 8%.0 V [mm] /soo 10 15 20 25 6.0 y JT13 EC3 LB. Considering the moré flexible joints. Response of sheeted frame Β for the lower value of β (= 0.5 SI 1 FRAME Bl ν 1. at least in die presence of low to moderate horizontal forces. the potential strength of the framework can be fully utilized.0125 0. In otiier terms.

1.5 SI V HINGE / 1.0 /500 V mm ] 0 50 100 151) 200 6.45. JT13) the service load multiplier re¬ sults higher than die ideal hinged scheme.04 and 11.io α 0.B.5 HINGE SI EC3 LB.44.0 20 40 60 80 100 6. 104 . Considering die actual bending continu¬ ity of the more flexible joints (SI.5 2.0 JTIS JT13 EPB 1-1 EC3 OB.5 /S=o. 3.10 1.0 JT13 EC3 LB. r 0.8 kN/mm and it dtis range can be easily provided by metal sheeting panels.0 * β =0.s* 500 V[n_n] 0. consequently higher values of the minimum stiffness are required in order to meet the strain limit but the increase of the axial load in me truss and of die consequent shear load in me connections is limited.0 a [FRAME Al ν 2. The values range form 0. JT12. Finally the minimum shear stiffness Q_ci) required to die cladding to make me frame model meet serviceability limits was determined by adopting an iterative procedure. The values are reported in the table 6. 3. A check of die axial loads on me truss and of die values of shear force trasmitted form the cladding to die frame shows that these values can be provided by connection vidi a limited number of bolts.10). EC3. Response of sheeted frame À for the higher value of β (= 0.LB. 2. RIGID 0.9 in the case of frames witìi flexible joints. JT12 IFRAME Bl 1.5 RIGID EPB 1-1 2.0 "Sj r ι \A R .0 α EC3 Ü.10). Response of sheeted frame Β for the higher value of β (= 0.5 Η α.

9.89 2. expecially for hinged frames was observed.34 2.cladding at all storey. . 0.33 SI 0.66 2. JT13.B.82 2. For each case.04 0.61 SI 1 0.03 1. Taking into account me action of cladding.Table 6.83 7.12 20 EC3 L.LB). Attention was dien focussed on frame A characterized by flexible joints (hinge. i.79 JT13 Φ . It has been die following cases: . Figures 6. using me previous hypotesis.69 4.03 3.07 1 JT12 0. in the table 6.66 hinge 1.68 JT13 .61 4.64 Φ.64 80 EC3 L. a 2nd Order elastoplastic analysis has been performed.05 1.38 1. the cladding only in one or two storeys of die frame. . Frame A Frame Β Joint β Kci at ash Kci at as.33 3.38 1. . 0.B.28 1. It is possible to observe tiiat die number of storeys with cladding panel influence of course the drift of me frame but also die position of me equivalent truss. In me cases of truss in die last or in the second and tiiird storey it has been a more stiffness response mat in the cases of truss on me first and on die first and second storey respectivelly.Φ 2.28 5.46 11.B.54 1 JT12 Φ 0. considering à partial cladding. SI.78 JT13 Φ 2.46 ' Φ' 9.36 0.77 1.79 7. 1. JT12.56 ' Φ 1.54 1.20 1.10 1. a notable in¬ crease in the load capacity and a skilful limitation of the lateral drift.38 0.j Kci at as.51 1.e.cladding on the third storey only.cladding on die second and tiiird storey. This condition would simulate me cases in which the panels me presence of openings (doors and windows) exerts a very weak stiffnening action on the frame and so dús one can be neglected.47 show die response diagram '-V' on me last storey for an hinged and for a SI jointed frame.cladding on die first storey. EC3. Φ 0.46 0.23 3. The load multiplier has been reported related to die case of simple frame without cladding action.cladding on me first and second storey.17 10 EC3 L.35 JT12 0.06 Φ 6.28 SI 0.73 Partial cladding A further series of analyses considered me different conditions árising when panels are not present on all storeys.h Kci at as.33 1.46 and 6.05 3.33 4. 105 . 0.10 than value of me relative storey displacemnts are reported for the considered cases. .68 hinge 1.87 1. Minimum values of the required shear stiffnes for cladding. Kci in kN/mm (t the frame meets serviceability limit without cladding).j hinge 0.36 0.

0 100 200 6:46. me model of semi-cöntinüous permit to satisfy die deflec¬ tion limit specified in die Codes. 106 . Response diagram '-V' on the last storey for an hinged frame (type A). 0. me attention has been focussed on die influence of joint action and cladding action on the response of frame at the service load level. The type of cladding used for this study seems sufficient to wash out die in¬ crease of flexibility associated to die use of semi-rigid joints (EPB 1-1) in lieu of rigid joints. Response diagram '-V' on the last storey for an S 1 jointed frame (type A). 6.47.6 Conclusions In this numerical study. Taking into account the cladding action via non sophisticated models (it has been adopted die model of equivalent truss) die lateral stiffness of die frame increase sub¬ stantially.0 100 200 300 6. However die service load defined by considering die ultimate load of die frame is increased also for joints nominally classified as hinge. me comparison witii the ideal cases of simple and rigid frames have shown that. in some cases. Neglecting cladding action. a 'for Jt 0.

A. 1991. 1987.K. D.50 HI 3. 'The behaviour of one storey reinforced concrete shear walls'. 253-296. 'Elastic Buckling of Semi-Rigid Sway Frames'. Nader.81 Ι&Π SI I 1.23 ΠΙ HI 3. Design of Steel Concrete Composite Structures.46 I 1.10. Nethercot and R. Bijlaard. De Luca and C.67 References American Institute of Steel Constuction. A.40 I 1. Vol.82 3.81 I 2. University of Warwick.R. E. General Rules and Rules for Buildings.46 m hinge Π 9. Bemuzzi. 1972. 1992.10 n&m hinge π 2.86 I 7.36 I 6.36 i. 27k? stressed skin design of steel buildings.57 HI DI 5.52 m 13.S.A. E.76 I 3. R.10 m 0.15 I hinge Π 22.24 I 1. p. Zandonini. p. Storey displacement of frame A with partial cladding ($ = evaluated at asj neglecting cladding action). Commision of the European Communities.82 I 1. Paella. 1989.55 1.78 01 32. 1985. Wiliam. Manual of Steel Construction. 83 (ST5) Paper 1254. Load & Resistance Factor Design.07 0.28 HI HI 1. Engineering Journal. Analysis and Design of Steel Frames with Semi-Rigid Connections. 8. C. Ì986. Elastic Analysis of Semi-Rigid Steel Frames. American Institute of Steel Construction. Design of Steel Structures.87 I 3. Anderson. Anderson.11 I SI Π 11. Stability and Strength. Astaneh and M. A. Costruzioni Metalliche. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers.26 Ι&Π hinge Π 1.57 n&m SI Π 1. D.72 m si Π 8. 1957. April. J. 'Rotational behaviour of End Plate Connections'. London 1988. Department of Engineering. Commision of the European Communities. Part 1. F. Parti. Zanon. 'Design of Tee Framing Shear Connections'. Vol. Zandonini and P. n&m si π 1. 1992.R Bryan. Benjamin and H.34 Ι. 6. D. First Quarter. 107 .<^sby-Lockwooå-Stapkss. Research Report CE/17.Table. First Edition. 74-103. Structural Connections. Cladding Joint Storey dis¬ Cladding Joint Storey dis¬ on storey type Storey placement* (mm) on storey type Storey placement* (mm) I 3. USA.N. 2. International Association for Bridge and Stractural Engineering IABSE Survey S-39/87. Cosenza.Π&ΠΙ hinge π 1. Eurocode 4. General Rules and Rules for Buildings. Eurocode 3.

7. 'Moment-Rotation Relations of Semi-Rigid Connections with Angles'. 'Skin effect in pin-jointed steel structures' (in English). Nethercot and R. Structural Connections. Kishi and W. Vol. Lam and D. 3. R. F.B. Part 2. 1988.A. 1978. Piluso. p.A. S. Anno VH. p. Nethercot. Poggi. 1991. 26.B. N. 26-1/26-26. San Francisco. F. Beam design in PR Breced Frames. 68. 31 (Feb. Rotational Stiffness Characteristics of Steel Beam-to- Column Connections Joint Flexibility in Steel Frames. 297-335.G. December 1990. No. Structural Engineer.F. 24. p. 8. July 1990.C. Kirby and D. 1987. London. 1988. p. 'Plasticity. Davison. On the interaction between masonry filler walls and enclosing frame when loaded in the plain of the walls. 1983. Thomas. Wood. Vol. D. 17-54. Vol. Chen. 'Methods of Prediction of Joint Behaviour: Beam-to-Column Connections'. Zanon. Nethercot.T. June 1978. 489-499. composite action and collapse design of unreinforced shear wall panels in frames'. 381- 411. F. p. 108 . L'effetto pelle nelle strutture sismo-resistenti di acciaio (in Italian). London. Davison. D. Mazzolani and V. Vol. P. 115-162. International Journalfor Numerical methods in Engineering.). Zandonini and P. London. Stability and Strength.). Mazzolani and F. R.-. Vol. Stability and Strength. 'Semi-rigid action of composite joints'. American Institute of Steel Construction.: Steel-Concrete Composite Structures.'Vol. p. 1990.V. 1988. Journal of Structural Engineering. 35-46. Ingegneria sismica. London.M.A. VoL 65. J. 1953. 8. 1960.M.A. 30-47. The Structural Engineer. 23-62. J. p. T. Structural Connections. 1988. p. Zandonini. 116. C. Earthquake Engineering Institute. 'Inelastic Buckling of Semi-Rigid Sway Frames'. Polyakov. Perugia.H. Sylos Labini. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. 'The strenght of brickwork'. Proceedings of the IX National Conference on Steel Construction (C. Third Quarter. No. Stability and Strength. Liauw. p. No. 'A Finite Element Model for the Analysis of Flexibly Connected Steel Frames'. 'Steel Frames with Concrete Infills'.A.

die Netherlands. conducted at TNO-Bouw. General views of the exterior of this structure are shown in figure 7. . 1. The objectives of diese tests and models are to observe and predict real values of static lateral stiffness. The initial lateral stiffness of the entire building about the major and minor axes is obtained. 7.Static model. Note that me overall building height is 6. The natural frequency of the building about die major and minor axes is obtained. and in the major axis 30.Dynamic model.75 m. Delft.1 and 7. Total building length in the minor axis is 20. It is referred to as building 1 1. Exterior of the building modelled: (above) minor axis: (under) major axis.2. Delft.1 Modelling of a two-storey steel-framed office building The building investigated is located at TNO. Initial lateral stiffness implies the stiffness of the structure when subjected to service loads only. Two finite element models for titis structure were constructed as follows: . This implies the determination of me natural frequency at which side-sway (lateral movements of me entire structure) occur. I I ! C' c Β' ti <=Π[| i 10 i9 ' - 8 7 ill 65 I 4 I 32 I 7. Testing and analysis of a full-scale steel framed building This chapter is concerned with the testing and modelling of a full-scale steel-framed building under service load levels.6 m. and may be classified as an office building. This structure was chosen as it is representative of many low-rise steel-framed office buildings in the NeÄerlands. 109 .7 m.

2a. Photo of the buildings exterior: minor axis. Photo of the buildings exterior: major axis.2b.:- 7. Î*T:·- 7. 110 . 'vW Ik ι-'.-- ί. SS** Hi_*f.

111 . These loads were con¬ sidered to be resisted by diagonal cross-bracing provided in exterior frames and in die roof. taken from die structural drawings. Predictions of lateral movements are made at me first floor and roof levels. Major axis and minor axis analyses are tiius treated independently. Effectively. Stractural calculations indicate that die building was basically designed to resist vertical dead and live loads.Partitions.For each model die participation at service load levels of individual building compo¬ nents against side sway movements is estimated. in botii me major and minor axes. Re-use of exist¬ ing piles required die designer to modify some column emplacements. Exterior walls constructed using pre-cast concrete units. Note mat frames in me minor axis are numbered 1-1 to 1 1-11. of which. The only lateral load design case considered is a minimum value equal to 1% of the vertical live load. floor beams and horizontal bracing systems). full-scale testing predicts building natural frequency with precision. Frames in the major axis are numbered A-A to E-. is shown in figure 7. first floor and roof levels. Elevation views of typical framing schemes in die major axis are shown in fig¬ ure 7. Due to the uncomplicated nature of die structural system and die simple building ge¬ ometry.4. applied at me roof level. Bom static and dynamic models were constructed as a basis of comparison for full-scale test results. Modelling of structural components A plan view at die first floor level and at die roof level. The roof consists of two dimensional trusses. glued togetiier. structural and non-structural components were treated as series of parallel frames and shear walls. Non-structural components include die following: . cross-bracing and a deep-ribbed tiiin-walled steel decking. One particularity of mis structure is its foundation. . The structure occupies die site of a previous building. Structural and non-structural components were included in me finite element analysis.3). a two dimensional finite element model was tiiought to be sufficiently accurate for service load level calculations.Cladding. Interior walls constructed of wood and gypsum board diaphragms. In effect. The first floor slab consists of lightweight precast concrete units witii a cast-in-place wearing surface. a number of existing piles were re-used. Elevation view of typical framing schemes in the minor axis are shown in fig¬ ure 7. while static stiffness must be estimated.3. Both me first floor slab and roof provide a substantial degree of in-plane shear stiffness to die structure. This may be noted in the plan view of die ground and first floor structural drawings (see figure 7. In diese views die general framing plan is indicated (column locations.5. Each frame and shear wall is connected at die ground.

(under) Frames B-B to D-D. I ir ]D C ]Β S' t E D' D C B B' A " I I I I I I 1 1 . Elevation view of structural details in the minor axis: (above) Frames 1-1 and 11-11. 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 '11 a 11 I I 1 1 E D' D C B B' A E D' D C B B' A 7.3.and E-. Elevation view of structural details in thè major axis: (above) Frames A./w//sy/Av//. 1 Z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .wssy//sy/A<y/sisy/)!sy/Asy. D b' e //ssy?/sy/A\y. 112 .4. (under) Frames 2-2 to 10-10.5. y/A\y?AsyyA\yy/sy//sy//^/^y/Asy//sy//syyA>^/>syyj^y. 7.11 /SWAW/AWAV/AW//WSJW¿WS/&SAWS}WSWSA>?&W//&S/Sy/XWX\ 11 10 98 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 _H //Aws/sy/w/Asys/sysAsysxv/ws/srsAS&Asysiw?ws*sy?/&>/sy/Xv/A'\ 7. Plan view of structural details at (left) the first floor level and (right) the roof level. V.

In die major axis most beam to column connections are provided using half-height connection plates. most beams are continuous and connected to die columns using cantilevered stud beams. The bolt pattern suggests diat only limited moment connection is provided. A typical example of this detail is shown in 113 . bodi vertically and horizontally. Typical beam-column connections: (left) half-height connection plate.6. Of particular note. driven to resis¬ tance at about 20m in sand and sandy-clay sediments.6. Typical examples of these details are shown in figure 7.7. These holes were subse- quendy filled witii concrete. A typical example of this detail is shown in figure 7. -φ- 7. -Φ- -Φ-· Φ 4. however. Typical column support detail. For analysis purposes die foun¬ dation is assumed to be perfectiy rigid. (right) stub beam de¬ tail.7. In die minor axis. ___ _É 7. Actual hori¬ zontal foundation rigidity is expected to be somewhat less man titis gross simplifica¬ tion implies. This suggests tiiat some moment resistance may be pre¬ sent as no concrete cracking at column bases is observed. Column supports consist of base plates bolted to the caps of the concrete pilings. and is modelled as a pin ended connection. die columns were placed in holes in an existing ground slab. The resulting beam to column connection provides litde moment resistance. The building's foundation is typical for the Nemerlands: friction piles.

Each panel was measured to be 150 mm thick and are made of minimally reinforced light-weight concrete.8. A modulus of elasticity E of 210.3 were used to define basic steel characteristics. Two-dimensional linear calculations in me X-Y plane were performed using six-node L6BEN beam elements. Beam are bolted to me stub beams. An endoscope was used to check cross-bracing and cross-bracing to column connec¬ tions.000 N/mm and Poisson's ration μ equal to 0.2. Upon visual inspection no evidence of panel cracking. It is assumed that no movement occurs between individual cladding panels or between panels and tiieir foundation. All partitions consist of 100 mm thick gypsum board. In some cases cross-bracing the effectiveness of me cross-bracing was ques¬ tionable. Modelling of exterior cladding A elevation view of the cladding is shown in figures 7.1 and 7. Modelling of interior partitions The locations of interior partitions on die ground and first floors are shown in figure 7.7. Each structural model (about the major and minor axes) were analysed using the DIANA finite element package.8. No plastification is expected tiius plastification post yield criteria were not specified. _"o: L_____r_-_ 7. 114 . Plan view of interior partitions at (left) the ground floor level and (right) the 1st floor level. resulting in a flexible beam to column connection. An upper bound estimation of actual cladding stiffness was assumed in die model. Partitions were not in¬ cluded in the static model because of tiieir weak attachment witii die stractural system. Openings between panels are left for windows and doors.figure 7. These connections are modelled as pin ended. Nominal section properties (cross-sectional area and moment of intertia) were used.

The floor slab consists of a 240 mm tiiick precast light-weight concrete slab and a 30 mm tiiick normal-weight concrete wearing surface. 115 . and have a total approximate length of 145 m. The interior partitions are glued to me floor slabs. and of the wearing surface.9.850 kg/m3 was as¬ sumed. how¬ ever. Each model (about the major and minor axes) was analysed using the DIANA finite el¬ ement package. No attachment is provided. is assumed for the cladding. The total unit weight of this slab is thus equal to 222 kg/m2. Cladding weight is thus equivalent to 10. how¬ ever.1 kN/m2. First. A lightweight concrete density. The density of the lightweight con¬ crete units was estimated as 675 kg/m3. The weight of each L6BEN element is determined by DIANA using these two parameters. All partitions are full height. No concrete cracking or crushing is expected. This upper bound estimate consists of the steel frame and the exterior cladding. Manufacturers data was used to define the nominal cross-nominal areas of each steel section. Partitions on the first floor are 3. the attachments were assumed to be infinitely rigid (full interaction). Second. Partitions are. A modulus of elasticity E of 20. Two stractural models are used to described the behaviour of the cladding attachment. Partitions are butted against mese boxes. Two-dimensional linear calculations in the X-Y plane witii eight-node CQ16M plate elements were performed.25 were used to define basic concrete characteristics. which are bent to fit A typical detail is shown in figure 7. cracks between panels or cracks at the foundation level were evident Windows and doors openings are included in the model. The total dead weight of the structure at the first floor level was thus assumed to be equal to 301 kg/m2. This lower bound estimate consists of the steel frame alone. 2000 kg/m3. Modelling of attachments The exterior cladding is connected to the stractural system (exterior columns) using stractural angels (clips). no shear transfer between the structure and cladding was assumed (no interaction). Interior partition weight was estimated using a gypsum density of 1100 kg/m3.13 m high. which assume a floor dead weight of 310 kg/m2. This gives an average first floor partition weight of 79 kg/m2. but do not come into contact with die adjacent floor beams or slab.000 N/mm2 and Poisson's ratio μ equal to 0. Upon close inspection no evidence of previous movements between structural frame and panel was observed. equal to 675 kg/m3. A nominal thickness of 15 cm for all elements was assumed. at the lateral or top edges of me partitions to the stractural frame. Modelling of the buildings mass For die buildings structural steel components. a steel density of 7. This is in general agreement witii the building's design calculations. butted against exterior columns. All interior columns are covered with fire protection materials and enveloped in wooden boxes for architectural reasons.

.. (under) bent only.9.AV·.Λ Ir 7. 'V '-* . 116 . 'V'. k "f* ν . Photos of a typical attachment between the cladding and an exterior column: (above) bend and drilled. Λί. * '·.

Building component Percentage of total building weight bare steel frame 1 cladding 81 1st floor slab 13 partitions 5 live load (1st floor) <1 roof <1 Modelling of lateral loads Lateral loads were placed at different heights on the structure to determine the effective stiffness of the structure against side sway. thus assumed to be equal to 35 kg/m2. Parallel to the major axis this load was placed at beam to column connections on frame 10 (see figure 7.4). Actual live loads on the first floor at die time of testing were minimal (at the time of testing die roof was dry). Thus the total dead plus live load applied at the first floor level is 314 kg/m2. 117 . Lateral stiffness was calculated in a similar manner. The maximum roof live load is stated to be equal to 90 kg/m2. At the time of testing it was estimated tiiat die average live load in the building on die first floor was 13 kg/m2. Roof weight was taken directiy from the design calculations. A nominal value of IN was applied at the level of the first floor and at the roof level. The weight of the roof was included in the DIANA model using PT3T translational point mass elements. Building weight was included in the DIANA model using PT3T translational point mass elements. Relative weight of individual building components. Table 7.1. These elements were placed at first floor level beam to column joints. The relative weight of individual building composites are shown in table 7.The building's design calculations specify diat die maximum first floor live load is equal to 250 kg/m2. The predicted val¬ ues of horizontal drift at the beam to column connections of frame 7 were used to cal¬ culated side sway stiffness using the following expression: K"d where: K is the side sway stiffness F is the applied lateral force at frame 10 d is die predicted lateral displacement at frame 7 Parallel to the minor axis loads are placed at beam to column connections of frame D (see figure 7. These elements were placed at roof level beam to column joints.1.5).

columns pin-ended at ground level. 3. The lateral drift resembles that which may be predicted for a shear diaphragm.thecladding . When die lateral load is applied at roof level (right figure).thé structural frame. The structural frame only (including cross-bracing). The model predicts that the cladding is suffer than the structural frame at service load levels. These values have been calculated and are shown in table 7. All columns are assumed to be fixed-ended ground level. From these four models the relative influence of individual parameters on the lateral stiffness of die entire building may be estimated.10. These parameters are the following: . 2. assuming full interaction between cladding and the structural frame with cross-bracing.2 Static model predictions A static analysis has been performed to determine the lateral sway stiffness of the structure described in paragraph 7. 118 .2. This has been done for the following cases: 1 . The cladding effectively dominates the stractural response of the building at service load levels.in-plane vertical cröss-bracing. and for the loadings investigated.7. 4. clearly illustrating the participation of die exterior cladding. limited in use to die building investigated. The entire building (cladding and stractural frame) witiiout cross-bracing. In-plane vertical cross-bracing. In the left figure lateral load is applied at the first floor level. . Parallel to the major axis Predicted lateral drifts for case 1 (about the major axis) are shown in figure 7. which producing lateral sway in the di¬ rection of the major axis: Relative importance of the cladding vs. The model predicts tiiat cross-bracing in the struc¬ tural frame of the finished building has a small but detectable influence at service load levels.column base fixity. These conclusions are. Column base fixity. The model predicts that me influence of column base fixity on lateral behaviour is of no practical importance. The relative stiffness of the cladding versus structural components increases when the ap¬ plied load and measured responce are closer to ground level. Using the values several con¬ clusions can be drawn. The entire building (cladding and structural frame). of course. The entire building. . lat¬ eral drift more closely resembles that which may be predicted for a moment resisting frame. the structural frame. For each case (cases 1 to 4) four values of lateral stiffnesses may be derived. 1.

3. // 2000- 1000- i r ι r ι ι ι ι τ 0 10 20 0 50 100 LATERAL MOVEMENT FOR 1 kN LATERAL MOVEMENT FOR 1 kN DF APPLIED LOAD <x IO"" rm) OF APPLIED LOAD <x 10"" iw) 7.610^ 1. 7000.Full interaction between structural frame and exterior cladding. 7000.7-105 base case w/o diagonal bracing 6. Nnoe Axis t / / / 5000.9-105 base case. / / r X / / // § 3000.610^ 8.1105 base case w/o diagonal bracing 4. .2.9-104 9.2-104 roof base easel 5.0105 structural system only 9.2-10^ 4.105 3.10.10. . In die left figure lateral load is applied at die first floor level.No participation of interior parutions. These values have been calculated and are shown in table 7. Conclusions drawn from an analysis of these values are die same as mose for the major axis.1 -104 X Summary of base case assumptions: .6-105 structural system only 9.0. . Parallel to the minor axis Predicted lateral drifts for case 1 about the minor axis are shown in figure 7. columns bases pinned 7. 119 . AU diagonal bracing in the structural frame is included. Lateral deformation Lateral load applied at recorded at Modeltype 1st floor roof 1st floor basecaseî 7. Height OF ftpputd Load / / t y 6000. The conclusions that may be drawn from the shapes of diese curves are similar to tiiose for die major axis. For each case (cases 1 to 4) four values of lateral stiffnesses may be derived. columns bases pinned 5.1-105 4. / / / / ε / / ~ 4000. AU columns are fixed ended at their base. A. Summary of lateral stiffnesses in the major axis (N/mm). Table 7. Predicted deformed shape for the base case 1 (base case): (left) load applied at the 1st floor and (right) load applied at the roof.5104 2.5·ΗΤ 1.8-104 base case.

. No participation of interior partitions. . Latnai deformation Lateral load applied at recorded at Modeltype 1st floor roof 1st floor base easel 6. Summary of base case assumptions: .4-10* structural system only 1.3.2-104 I.4 a summary of the predicted lateral sway natural frequencies parallel to die major and minor axes are given.the cladding .in-plane vertical cross-bracing.1-105 1.1-10* 4. This is the basic structural system as described in paragraph 7.3-105 1. thus a comparison of relative stiffnesses can be estimated for the following parameters: . The results of die dynamic analysis tend to support die conclusions of die static analysis given in paragraph 7. AU diagonal bracing in the structural frame is included.3-10* 5.2. assuming full interaction between cladding and die structural frame with cross-bracing.61Ò4 base case. . . In table 7.3-10* base case w/o diagonal bracing 5. columns pin-ended at ground level.4-10* base case w/o diagonal bracing 4. All columns are assumed to be fixed-ended ground level. All columns are fixed ended at their base.1. 2.2-10* structural system only 1.2-1Ö5 4. 3. .3-105 base case.column base fixity. Natural frequency tends to increase with lateral stiffness. The entire building (cladding and structural frame) without cross-bracing. 4. columns bases pinned 6. The entire building.2-10* 1.5-10* 5.1-10* roof base easel 5. The entire building (cladding and structural frame). Table 7. columns bases pinned 5. This has been done for die following cases: 1. Full interaction between structural frame and exterior cladding. 120 . Summary of lateral stiffnesses in the minor axis (N/mm). The structural frame only (including cross-bracing). 7.1. .3 Dynamic model predictions A dynamic analysis has been performed to determine the fundamental lateral sway fre¬ quency of the model described in paragraph 7.die structural frame.2-105 9.

columns bases pinned 7.7. The lateral ground support conditions of die columns and cladding. Table 7. The frequency response function contains informa¬ tion about the natural frequencies. Column base fixity. were not investigated. .4 0. The objective of these tests is to derive actual values of natural frequency and static lateral stiffness. It is of interest to note that the predicted stiffness in the minor axis. 7.1 Structural system only 3.Full interaction between structural frame and exterior cladding. The predicted natural frequency of the building in die major axis and in the minor axes support the static analysis. This is achieved by exciting the building and measuring die response (for example displacement. These include die following: . This may be due to the cladding stiffness in die minor axis. The full procedure behind die derivation of structural properties is explained in paragraph 7. Two means of exciting me structure were used: a hammer and a shaker (eccentric rotating masses). are larger than similar values predicted in die major axis.5 Testing of a two-storey steel-framed office building The building investigated is the same as that described in paragraph 7.No participation of interior partitions. Vertical cross-bracing has a measurable ef¬ fect on lateral stiffness.4 Summary of model predictions Model predictions indicate that at service load levels die cladding dominates structural response in bom the major and minor axes. 7. The interaction provided by die attachments between the cladding and the structural system. however. when the load is applied at the roof. Comparing the frequency re¬ sponse functions with matiiematical models.4 base case.1. 121 . . In the minor axis there are fewer openings at die first floor level than in the major axis. Structural properties (static stiffnesses and natural frequencies) can be derived by mea¬ suring me time function of both excitation and response. . Time functions are converted into frequency response functions. Summary of predicted lateral sway modal frequencies (Hz).All columns aie fixed ended at their base. Modeltype Major axis Minor axis basecaseï 8.1 base case w/o diagonal bracing 6. velocity or acceleration). structural parameters as stiffness. has only a small influence upon lateral behaviour. Summary of base case assumptions: . The shear connection provided betwn mdividual cMding panels. mass and damping can be derived.4. and damping ratio.1 7.1 3:5 1.All diagonal bracing in the structural frame is included. .5 6. Several parameters that may be of significance. .

9).5 lists all field testing equipment used for these measurements. Table 7. These values are given in table 7. Hammer position Shaker position Direction C-6 Major B-6 Major B-6 Minor B-8 Minor C-7 Major C-7 Minor [ The response of die structure was simultaneously measured on die ground floor. Positions of response transducers.5. Typically. Transducer Major axis Minor axis Level 1 B-10 D-6 roof 2 D-10 D-10 roof 3 B-10 D-6 1st floor 4 D-10 D-10 1st floor 5 B-10 D-6 ground floor 6 D-10 D-10 ground floor 122 . Position of applied excitation.1 to 7. The exact locations are shown in figure 7.7.7.1 1 and summarized in table 7.Field measurements Field measurements on March 14. Field testing equipment Number Description Make Type 6 Acceterometas Sundstrand S-700 6 Conditioner for Sunstrand TNO-Bouw C-S-700 6 Displacement transducers Hottinger B-3 6 Conditioners for Hottinger Hottinger KWS3073 6 Amplifiers Hottinger Ζ 3576 1 Data acquisition system Bakker 2570 1 Pulse hammer TNO-Bouw 10 kg 1 Conditioner for hammer B&K 2626 1 Mechanical exciter TNO-Bouw 400 kg The excitation load was applied by means of a 10 kg instrumented hammer or a 400 kg mechanical shaker.6. first floor and roof level by means of acceleration and displacement transducers in die same direction as die applied force. Table 7. The structure was excited on the first floor in bom major and minor axis. 1992 have been made on building 11 of TNO Building and Construction Research (see figures 7. Table 7.6. Table 7. displace¬ ment transducers give better results in die low frequency range (1 < f < 20 Hz) and ac¬ celeration transducers give better results in the high frequency range (f > 20 Hz).

This resulted in a complex frequency response function and in a coherence function between excitation and response. tiieoretically in the frequency domain all frequencies have the same magnitude. The hammer was instrumented witii an accelerometer. In the derivation of me stiffness the influence of higher order modes has been calculated.6 y?^^Àf^//^y^^/^^//^y^^Aç^y/ç^yAsyAc^y>^/x<yyxvyx^Ç^yk<y//s. Furthermore. In this manner all frequencies above 500 Hz were suppressed. Afterwards the signals were converted to the frequency domain. For all locations and directions mentioned in table 7. 1 2 3 45 6 78 9 10 .7).5 EZ> TRANSDUCER φ· HAMMER Φ SHAKER 7. Applied load is thus determined us¬ ing the hammer mass and measured accelerations. (under) plan view.7 the natural frequency and stiffness of die building was determined using a circle fit procedure assuming viscous damping (see paragraph 7. Testing using an impact hammer An impact hammer was used to excite die structure by providing a pulse load. the influence on die stiffness due to damping otiier tiian viscous damping has been cal- 123 .11. In practice. higher frequencies can be suppressed by mounting a rubber tip on the hammer. litas 2A6| t3. Locations of excitation and transducers: (above) elevation view.11 ·-* *M- J5. All signals were digitized and recorded simultaneously on die data acquisition system.6 and all positions mentioned in table 7. Under such a condition.

A circle fit is shown together with the measured data (indicated by a +).20 0. position 2.oo 12 16 20 f [hz] 7. "- o.13 the frequency response function is presented. 124 .15 I UJ 0.40 I 0.os : I I .8O 0. In figure 7. . file 2. Below 3 Hz the coherence is poor. Using only die frequency range with good coherence. which correspond to second and higher order natural frequencies. Figure 7.¿ . Coherence function between force and acceleration. a peak value is observed at approxi¬ mately 7. file 2. Frequency response function based on acceleration.00 ilK I \-^ 0. Figure 7.culated.20 0.13. . 0. '. The fit procedure was carried out using die acceleration and displacement re¬ sponse signals. In tìtis example an excitation is Signal analysis is illustrated by means placed at position D-6 and the response is measured at the roof level. Additional circles can be observed.60 ii J 0.00 12 16 20 f [hzl 7. D-10 (position 2). . 1.12.10 o.5 Hz. This value corresponds with the first natural frequency. position 2. Good coherence for die frequency range between 4 and 12 Hz is observed.14 shows the real and imaginary part of the frequency response function. j £. of an example.12 shows the coherence function between force and acceleration.

16 show the coherence and circle fits for the same example. 0 -* 8 12 16 20: f [hz] 7. Coherence function between force and displacement.0 0.15.00 ^ ' 1 : 1 .14.00 -1.00 0. Circle fit based on acceleratie«.20 02. 1.15 and 7. It may be concluded that the lateral sway stiffness at the roof and first floor levels can be derived from both displacement and acceleration measurements. the results using displacement responce are slightly better than those obtained using accelerations.80 0. since the first natural frequency is in the low range.15. The results of all circle fit analyses are summarized in tables 7. Again a good coherence is observed from 4 to 12 Hz. Figures 7.60 .40 0. but using displacement measurements.60 -0.20 0. The lateral stiffness at the ground level can only be derived from the measured displacements. (E-8) 7. ! j .60 1. 1. position 2. As expected. file 2. 0. 125 .00 -1. position 2.00 re .8 to 7.00 -Ό. file 2. A slightly better circle fit is obtained in this case than that derived from ac- celerometer measurements.

15 0.60 0.12 0.9 7.1 8.0 8.9 7..20 -0.1 7.0 7.13 0.60 -0.1 Table 7.4 7.9 7.4 7.60 ί K^_ J -1.9.1 D-10 8.16.8 D-10 8.9 7.9 1st floor B-10 7.7 8.6 D-10 8.14 D-10 0. viajor axis Minor axis Position axis C-6 C-6 B-6 B-6 axis B-6 B-6 B-8 roof level B-10 0.15 0. Major axis Minor axis Position axis C-6 C-6 B-6 B-6 axis B-6 B-6 B-8 roof level B-10 8.15 0.4 7. Table 7.15 D-10 0.7 8.3 8.4 8.0 D-6 8. 1.L.7 7.24 D-10 126 .6 D-10 8.3 D-10 7.8 8.9 D-10 8. Damping ratios χ derived from accelerations.9 7.0 ground floor B-10 7.8 D-10 Table 7.4 8.20 " 7 .9 7.17 0.15 0.7 8.18 0.14 D-10 0.7 8.6 7.15 0.0 D-10 7.14 0.0 7.8. Natural frequencies in Hz derived from displacements.15 0.1 7.14 0.16 0.00 -1.4 8.6 7.0 7. Natural frequencies in Hz derived from accelerations.7 8.14 D-6 0.4 7.1 7.6 7.8 8.7 8.3 7.13 0.4 7. Circle fit based on displacement.9 D-10 7.20 0.3 7.i iL jrZ ¿S.8 8.17 ground flow B40 0.0 7.1 D-6 D-10 7.00 re (E-8) 7.1 D-6 7.1 7. -0.7 D-6 8.15 D-6 0.9 ground floor B-10 7.00 0.60 1.10.6 7. Viajor axis Minor axis Position axis C-6 C-6 B-6 B-6 axis B-6 B-6 B-8 roof level B-10 7.12 0.4 8.13 D-6 D-10 0.5 7.13 0.7 D-6 8.16 0.4 8.0 D-10 7.9 D-10 8.0 D-6 8.00 -Ό.19 1st floor B-10 0.15 0.9 8..14 0.15 0.3 1st floor B-10 7.9 8.20 0.1 7.6 7.4 7.8 8.16 0. position 2.1 7.16 D-10 0. file 2.

Majoraxis Minor axis Position axis C-6 C-6 B-6 B-6 axis B-6 B-6 B3 roof level B-10 0.14 0.11.58 0.009 D-6 0.59 0.77 D-10 0.56 0.14 0.95 D-10 1.17 D-10 0.030 0.72 D-10 0.12 0.14 0.017 0.014 0.16 0.64 1st floor B-10 0.011 D-10 0.13.012 0.15 0.53 0. Major axis Minor axis Position axis C-6 C-6 B-6 B-6 axis B-6 B-6 B-8 roof level B-10 0.028 D-10 0.300 0.98 1.00 1.80 0.15.16 0.00 1.00 D-10 1.12.017 0.36 0.72 0.48 1st floor B-10 0.15 D-10 0.57 0.39 D-10 0.56 0.021 0.80 0.011 0.009 0.Table 7.009 0.61 0.012 0. Major axis Minor axis Position axis C-6 C-6 B-6 B-6 axis B-6 B-6 B-8 roof level B-10 0.50 0.00 D-10 1.65 0.87 1.13 0.17 D-6 0.016 0.14 D-10 0.780 0.50 1.00 D-10 7.010 0.83 D-6 0.00 0.12 0.69 0.45 0.009 0.20 0.14 0.009 0.014 0.16 D-10 0. Coefficient of variation of stiffness derived from accelerations.014 0.016 0.029 0. Major axis Minor axis Position axis C-6 C-6 B-6 B-6 axis B-6 B-6 B-8 roof level B-10 0.009 D-6 0.017 0.16 0.74 0.48 D-6 0.13 0.17 0.50 1.520 0.45 0.14 0.15 0.590 0.011 0.67 0.15 0.00 Table 7.10 D-6 8.012 0.66 D-10 0.13 0.56 ground floor B-10 2.006 1st floor B-10 0.80 1.008 D-10 0.017 0.600 10200 10. Coefficient of variation of stiffness derived from displacements.85 D-10 0.14 0.60 1.75 D-10 0.014 D-10 0.026 D-10 0.010 0.016 0.14 0.78 0.66 ground floor B-10 8.21 0. Stiffness k [109·ΝΑη] derived from accelerations.14 0.006 0.63 0.10 0.15 0.30 D-10 5.00 0.015 0.60 1.68 0.17 0.025 0.012 0.65 0.320 0.74 0.027 10.500 0.37 0.009 0.73 0.010 D-10 0.16 0.009 0.016 D-10 0.10 D-6 10. Damping ratios χ derived from displacements.76 D-6 0.17 1st floor B-10 0.140 0.014 D6 0.011 0.018 0.15 0.Ó08 0.019 0.300 D-10 0.011 0.032 D-10 0.020 ground floor B-10 0.13 0.14.15 D-6 0.012 0.82 0.80 6.90 1.009 0.37 0.16 0.14 D-6 0.016 0.009 D-6 0.10 1.15 D-10 0.96 0.010 1st floor B-10 0.016 127 .93 0.14 D-10 0.17 ground floor B-10 0.25 D-10 0.69 0.020 D-10 0.14 0.012 0.020 0.022 0.270 0.011 0.30 1. Major axis Minor axis Position axis C-6 C-6 B-6 B-6 axis B-6 B-6 B-8 roof level B40 0.48 D-6 0.018 D-6 0.350 Table 7.013 0.65 0.010 0.130 0.00 1.014 D-10 0.006 0. Stiffness k [109-N/mj derived from displacement.80 7.005 0.74 0.52 Table 7.037 0.023 0.007 ground floor B-10 0.00 7.63 0.30 Table 7.24 0.90 D-6 D-10 9.

85 0.54-0.10 Testing using a shaker A shaker containing of two eccentric rotating masses (rotating in opposite directions) was used. using both accelerometers and displacement transducers.30-1. several points in the frequency response function can be obtained.19 and 7.30-0.20 In table 7.16. In the test.16 lateral stiffness is presented in the same manner as used in die summary of the finite element model predictions. The frequency response function was detennined for both the major and die minor axes. for load applied at 1st floor. By testing at several frequencies.59-1. The mean value and coefficient of variation has been translated into values witii a 90% confidence leveL Table 7. me coefficient of variation increases to approximately V = 0.10 ground floor 0. 128 . The resulting frequency response functions using displacement transducers lead to reasonable results for both major as minor axis.21-0. An analysis of structural parameters using this frequency response function is difficult to make. starting with a measured frequency re¬ sponse function.80 0.50-2.20 0. thus the entire function is approximated. The coeffi¬ cients of variation of the estimation of stiffness per hammer blow are in the order of V = 0.20 (minor axis).74 0. The structure was excited several times.18 (major axis) and 7.42-0.00 0.7. Summary of stiffness k [109-N/mj.02. static stiffness. the in frequency steps used were approximately 1 Hz. natural frequency and damping ratio u. When measuring displacements response instead of acceleration responce. of an entire as-build steel-framed building was measured using a hammer excitation.00-1.55-1. Averaging all hammer blows on one specific level and in one direction.30 0. In one direction (major or minor axis) several excitations were applied at each level (first floor or roof). Test results taken from displacement transducer measurement are shown in figures 7. the stiffness at ground floor level can be derived even when exciting at first floor level. been ommited. Major axis Minor axis Deformation recorded at acceleration displacement acceleratimi displacement roof 0.17 and 7.57-1. therefore.10 0. since there is very little data available near the first natural frequency. For each shaker frequency only one discrete point on the fre¬ quency response function can be obtained.77 1st floor 0.Summary of tests using an impact hammer The lateral load response. This analysis has. structural characteristics can be derived. each time with the shaker running at a different frequency. As shown in paragraph 7.

=shaker3). Frequency response function for minor axis based on displacement ( = hammer 3. I? ai 20 f [Hz] 7.20 X .17. = shaker 4). 129 .50 1\ If I 0.0.10 ί '" V \zr^ /^s_'- ^TT^·-·^ 0. \ 0.40 0.30 0.80 0.80 ' 0.19.40 v .70 0.7Ó 0.50 v 2 > 00 Μ 1 m 0.18. 0.30 \ KJ 0.10 0.C\ 1 T"" 0. . Λ7. Frequency response function for major axis based on displacement (shammer 4.00 1 8 12 16 20 f [Hz] 7. = shaker 3).60 0.00 0 12 16 20 f [Hz] 7.60 0.20 r . 0. Frequency response function for major axis based on displacement ( = hammer 3.

many measurements must be made at different speeds. Good examples of comparisons between natural frequencies for these two methods may be see in figures 7. Applied force was not measured directly but was calculated using rotating mass eccentricity and rotation frequency. it was necessary to install the rotating mass using a fork lift truck through a first storey window. installation and measurement times for the ham¬ mer blow technique are much shorter than for the rotating mass. measurements should be made using small frequency steps near die first natural frequency.---= shaker 4). as opposed to a hammer: 130 . Summary of tests using shaker a When using a shaker consisting of countre-rotating masses. measurements are both accurate and quickly obtained. however. With a hammer blow. requiring special equipment to move it into location. good estimates of static lateral stiffness were obtained from the frequency responses using a hammer blow.20 (die major and minor axes of die building studied at TNO). Irregardless of measurement quality. The following disadvantages are thus sited when using a shaker.19 (die major and minor axes of me building studies to TNO).20. Comparison of hammer blow and shaker testing The determination of die natural frequency is potentially as accurate using a shaker as when using a hammer blow. in an effort to obtain the speed which corresponds to the buildings maximum response. Frequency response function for minor axis based on displacement ( -hammer 4.18 and 7. The frequency responses for the two test methods are compared in figures 7. The results of the shaker test can be improved by directly measuring the excitation force.17 and 7. In the case of die TNO building. The frequency responses obtained using a shaker were not sufficiently accurate to en¬ able an estimation of the buildings lateral static stiffness. It OJ 20 f [Hz] 7. The rotating mass it¬ self is heavy. In contrast. Using a shaker.

In some cases it may be necessary to use a crane to install. Experimental errors at service load levels are generally larger than tiiose that may be expected at ultimate load levels. It is mus vety difficult to es¬ timate static lateral sliffness.The shaker is both large and heavy. All as¬ sumptions used with this model were intuitive. . Static lateral load stiffness and die natural frequency were estimated. so does die necessary energy input For very large structures it may become difficult to supply sufficient energy using a hammer. titis results in the following: . The larger standard deviation in die minor axis is due to a rotational component of buildings response.10% in die major axis . 131 . A two dimensional finite element model using beam and píate elements was chosen. .6 Comparison of test results and model predictions An existing steel framed building was botii modelled and tested under service load conditions. . Only information commonly available to designers was used. 7.At low frequencies the excitation force is very small.The model is typical of tiiose used to determine die ultimate load carrying capacity of the structural system. This was done by repeatedly applying load at the same location. The inherent variability of service load level measurements implies that a sufficient number of measurements must be made to estimate the standard distribution of recorded values.25% in the minor axis. . The standard deviation of measured values in the major and minor axes were thus derived for a confidence level of 90%. and by applying load at several different locations in the structure. This implies that the designer can add non-structural com¬ ponents to an existing models.As the size of the structure increases. Disadvantages of using a hammer blow as opposed to a shaker are as follows: .Testing time is considerably increased. This is mainly due to thé participation at service load levels of many building components that noimally fail before ultimate loads are ap¬ plied. This was done for die following reasons: . This component was not further investigated as it could not be predicted using die two dimensional finite element model. For the building tested.Design information on parameters such as column fixity. All comparisons given here thus represent the variance (for one particular structure) between typical design models including non-structural components and real structural behaviour at service load levels. joint stiffness and the real interaction between structural and non-structural components is not at present widely used.

Finite element model (FEM) predictions and test results are seen to differ by 10% to 25%.18. however.4Hz 3. Test FEM FEM Value (real structure) (real structure) (bare steel frame) Natural frequency 7. in negligible when compared to die stiffness gained by including non-structural components. This difference. however. This can result in very substantial increases in lateral stiffness without the need to increase structrual member sizes.17.18. Thèse gains can be obtained using existing calculation techniques and without adding material to the existing structure.Major axis A comparison of measured and predicted values in the major axis are shown in tabel 7. Comparison of measured and predicted values in the minor axis (Lateral load applied at the lstfloor). Table 7.17. beam to column con¬ nections and connections between structural and non-structural building components can give reasonable predictions of real in-service building responses to lateral loads at service load levels. Comparison of measured and predicted values in the major axis (Lateral load applied at the lstfloor).1Hz 3. These gains can be obtained using existing calculation techniques and without adding material to the existing structure. Finite element model (FEM) predictions and test results are seen to differ by 10% to 20%. Table 7.1Hz 1st floor stiffness 640-10* N/m 720-10* N/m 9910* N/m Roof stiffness 430-10* N/m 56010* N/m 95-10* N/m Minor axis A comparison of measured and predicted values in the major axis are shown in table 7.1Hz 1st floor stiffness 710-10* N/m 650-10* N/m 13010* N/in Roof stiffness 420-10* N/m 520-10* N/m 11010* N/m Conclusions m In general. This difference. in negligible when compared to die stiffness gained by including non-structural components. 132 . This is encouraging as it suggests that á linear two dimensional finite el¬ ement model with simple assumptions for column base fixity. Test FEM FEM Value (real structure) (real structure) fljare steel frame) Natural frequency 8. between 270% and 550%.7 Hz 8. between 250% and 650%. The inclusion of non-structural element at service load levels can be done by modi¬ fying existing structural analyses. measured and predicted values correspond to within reasonable confi¬ dence limits.4 Hz 7.

Η(ω) = ^f(ö» This measured frequency response function gives information on natural frequencies and damping ratio. Viscous damping Assuming that the building behaves linear and tiiat only viscous damping is present.viscously damped . stractural (or hysterically) damped . The mamematical model should represent a multiple degree of freedom system. ve¬ locities or accelerations are measured. Here. The frequency response function Η(ω) can then be calcu¬ lated by dividing displacement χ(ω) and force ί(ω) frequency functions. tiiree classes of system models are described: . The basics functioning of each system will be explained only for viscous damping.7. The time functions for both force and displacement can be converted into frequency functions by means of a FFT (Fast Fourier Transfer) routine. Coulomb friction. mass and damping can be derived. any multiple degree of freedom sys¬ tem can be represented as a superposition of single degree of freedom systems. When the mathematical model of the building is known stiffness.7 Theoretical principles behind building measurements When load is applied to a structrue by means of a hammer blow. a single degree of freedom system can be described mathematically by equation (1): mx(t) + cx(t)+kx(t) = f(t) ('!) where: m is the mass c is the viscous damping k is the stiffness x(t) is the displacement f(t) is the force A Laplace transformation of equation (1) leads to: ms2 + cs + k = f (2) where: x(t) =xest f(t) =fest Wim no external forcing in equation (2) we obtain the condition: 133 . For linear behaviour. These measurements lead to time functions of excitation and response (force and displacements). displacements.

k-<j>2m + ica) . T . the damping ratio [-] CO 2λ/Ε_ 6 The frequency response function Η(ω) can be expressed by equation (5): rT. 2m (3) or: δ= -θοξ±^ (4) where: (ùQ = Vk/m the natural frequency in [rad/s] C G ξ ===_.arm + (c(D)x The magnitude of me frequency response function can tiien be calculated from: Η(ω)= . s2 (7a) (k-ormr + (cmr · Re(Y)= 2^ -2 (7b) (k-szmr + (ca>r Then: 134 . The fit procedure is carried out by means of die circle fit procedure. the model properties coq. * (6a) V(k-a>2m)2 + (cû>)2 or: j.ms2 + cs + k = 0 The solution to this equation is: -c±Vc2-4km . ξ. . . k and m can be derived. For dus aim the frequency response function Η(ω) from equation (5) is converted in a response func¬ tion for velocity Υ(ω) (impedance function) and divided in a real part and a imaginary part. Η(ω) = k (6b) A/(i-4)2-(2-^)2 V «£ <"*> By fitting equation (5) or (6) to the measured frequency response function Η(ω).c. <ö(k-<_m)2 y-v Im((D) =^ 2 s2 .~ s=. Η(ω)= 7y ~7y (5) k .

(Re(Y)-¿)2 + Im2(Y) = (¿)2 (8)

Equation (8) describes a circle with radius ¿ and centre (¿,0). By fitting a circle to the
measured imaginary frequency response function Η(ω), the centre and radius can be
calculated.
As mentioned in the introduction die tested building can not be described by a single
degree of freedom system. The frequency response function of a multiple degree of
freedom system, however, can be expressed by a superposition of the frequency re¬
sponse functions of single degree of freedom systems. When the frequencies of the
other modes are not in the vicinity of the first natural frequency, the contribution to
Υ(ω) of die higher natural frequencies is approximately constant (independent of fre¬
quency).
The contribution of the other modes is expressed in a constant B. For a multiple degree
of freedom system, instead of equation (6) we get:

Η(ω) = 1
(k-G)2m)2 + (ca>)2
-
+'B (9)

On die modal circle the effect of Β is a rotation of the circle and a shift of the circle
centre. The structural parameters of the first mode can tiierefore be derived from a
single degree of freedom system, taking me circle radius as a reference. The influence
of otiier modes is estimated from die shift of die frequency response function.
The derivation of the stractural parameters is explained by figure 7.21.

7.21. Example circle fit

Having a circle as shown in figure 7.16, die angle r can be derived from:

135

ω2
1 --
-^
tan|e=2ξω (10)

Differentiating θ with respect to ω we get
-1
dO _ 2ξωωρ
dco ω2

1+^¿
(____)2

When ω = cûq, d_/d<u reaches a maximum value. The term dO/dca corresponds witii me
rate at which die locus sweeps around me circular arc. So die natural frequency coq can
be found at die maximum value of the sweep rate dcű/d6.
The damping of die tested structure can be derived supposing:
- 'a' is point on die circle above the natural frequency ©o
- 'b' is point on the circle below the natural frequency ω.
Then:

l--2
tan|Ob=-^ (12a)
_____

ωο

tan|ea=--^ (12b)
2ξω_
ωο
The damping ratio can then be estimated by combining equations (12a) and (12b):

ç.: <»>-< ' (13)
2u30((ûatanjea + (ûptan-jOb)

The stiffness k can now be found via equation (14):

k.¿- (14)

where 'r' is die radius of die circle.

136

The influence on the stiffness contributed by me other mode shapes is estimated by the
shift of die imaginary of the circle. The contribution to die stiffness of the other modes
is:k'=l/B.

Structural (or hysteric) damping
For multiple of freedom systems, also models using structural damping can be used
[Ewins, 1986]. The damping rate varies inversely with frequency c = h/. Instead of
equation (6b) we get:

Η(ω) = ι 2JL f^ (15a)
k-ctrm + i(h)
1
Η(ω) = - (15b)
1 -( )2+ΐη
ωο
where me stractural damping loss factor η equals

A circle for frequency response function can be described by
dm(H)-¿)2 + Re(H)2 = (¿)2 (8)

The term η can be estimated by

2(ω^-ω;)
^=~2 ι ^i -
(ûoitan-jOa + tan|Gb)
(16)

So the stiffness k equals:

k = -i--
2Γξ

Coulomb friction
Coulomb or dry friction can occur in combination with viscous damping. The system
then behaves nonlinear. In case Coulomb friction the frequency response function
varies witii me applied force, die damping parameter η becomes:

« *_. 2R 2
η=ς+:
naar

Where:
R is the colomb friction
a is die exatation amplitude.

137

viscous-damping and colomb-friction is impossible since there are many combinations of parameters which lead to die same result Reliability of the derived parameters When calculating structural parameters experimental error must be estimated. Modal Testing. y __ σ μ Where: V is die coefficient of variance σ is die standard deviation μ is die mean value. The discrepancy between fit and measurement can for instance be due to the fact tiiat the model witii viscous damping is not correct This can be due to coulomb friction and stractural (or hysteric) damping. 1986. England. For in¬ stance die circle will never fit exactly to the measured data. Research Studies Press Ltd. The standard deviation of the fit is estimated by the discrepancy between fitted and measured frequency response function. The standard deviation of die flexibility can be estimated by: t2 s f (Hj-H)2 "____ n-1 i=l References DJ. stiffness. The reliability of the parameters is here expressed by me coefficient of variance of the parameters. 138 . Ewins. Theory and practice.To derive the parameters of such a model: mass.

has been designed to bear the nominal loads of aero¬ station halls on the first floor and of parking places on the second. requires that analytical models capable of approximating die main phenomena affecting the system performance are available. 8. The floor structure consists of precast concrete units witii load-reducing polystyrene blocks and with a cast-in-placè concrete wearing surface. briefly described in figures 8. is the new domestic arrivals hall of the passengers aerostation at Milan-Linate Airport The building. Two dynamic exciters were used witii regard to the different masses of the two build¬ ings.50 m respectively for spans of 8 and 12 m. In correspondance with die columns lines the floors are built with no load-reducing polystyrene blocks. 8. This is particulariy true with reference to die analyses aimed at evaluating the response under service loads. Physical results (in terms of acceleration and power spectrum) are compared with those of some numerical models obtained assuming different boundary conditions and internal continuity between die elements. Conclusions are drawn concerning the capability of in-situ dynamic test memods to correctly estimate the stractural behaviour at service load levels. 1. the totál building dimensions are 64.3. Serviceability is in general a critical limit state governing the design of steel stractures. named 'Corpo-Ovest'. As outlined in [Castoldi et al. 1987. This chapter reports die results of in-situ dynamic tests and numerical analyses carried out at the University of Trento on two different types of new buildings: die first one constructed with steel columns and steel-concrete floors. dynamic in-situ testing repre¬ sents a viable approach to an appraisal of the influence of the various factors affecting tiie in service behaviour.89 m (only 5 m above ground).2 and 8. It was then selected. The floor thicknesses are 0.8 Evaluation of the actual structural behaviour at service load level of full- scale structures by in situ dynamic tests A reliable assessment of the stractural response via computer simulation.96 by 7.45 and 0. 1987].96 by 36.1 Structures investigated Composite structure The first structure investigated. die second one built entirely out of steel. in order to assess the influence of fram¬ ing continuity on the structural stiffness and to consequently provide indications useful for design analyses. Kobayashi. 139 . It is essentially a rectangular building with a basement and one above-ground floor.

0.0. Sections of composite structure.5 __§9 . 1st and 2nd floor building plan 7./ 8 - \ ¿Building 8 \ ! 36.5 'ΤΓΓ .96 .5.. 140 .96 / Detail· B 0. ί ι .2.89 :j + +-»·<"> I I I '///.0.45 ^77777777? 4 \.45 "ΓΓΓ /"Μ +3. Section A-A Detail A 36. 4 _s _k_ a 37-46 Section B-B : ___ SiAS _ .96m foundatiouns plan θ a a a s a m 37.73 8. 8 bT 12 \ Tb 8 Ι β I 8 J 8 I 8 64.0. 0. Plans of composite structure.6 0. : .1.48 a a a aa a a aaaaaaaa bT 8.5 gq1 -' V.89 . +7.5 .5 0.4 0.+ +ο·° I elelê-lelelelele I 1 64. 1 .6 0.

48 Γ"""1 +7.00 0.3. The loads are transmitted to the columns by means of welded stub beams on the first floor and on the internal columns of the second one.3). The floors are supported by die bottom flange of longitudinal 8 m-long steel beams which are included into die final layer of concrete. at the column lines there is no continuous steel reinforcement on the beams.89 c o o o ιοτ tí Detail A Side Columns . The columns are continuous from the foundations to the second floor and are con¬ structed with HE 400B and HE 450B steel shapes. 141 . The beams are made with HE 400B and HE 450B steel shapes and are simply bolted to die columns or to stub beams welded to the columns. on the external columns of the second floor the beams are continu¬ ous over the columns so that the loads are directly trasmitted (see figure 8.» . Beam-to-beam and beam-to-column connection details. +7.89 U5T sE **t °_ Detail Β Inner Columns -%-z%- 8.

4. m 8. The columns are constructed with HE 240A and HE 400B shapes. and with welded beams for the 12 m spans. m 8. m I 1 1 © 8. The secondary beams are 8 m long IPE 270. The structure consists of six five-bay portal frames connected with secondary beams. whose total dimensions are 48 by 36 by 3. m L· 8. Steel framework The second structure investigated. Plan of steel roofing structure. briefly described in figures 8.5 and 8. is a part of the steel roofing structure of the new parking area of the passengers aerostation at Milan-Linate Airport. The steel roofing structure. m Φ- 8.The foundations are made with bearing micropiles connected to independent footings for the internal columns and to a grade beam for the external ones. m ®- J' 12.6. 142 .2). is based on a part of a composite reinforced concrete-steel building named 'Corpo-Sud'. m 8. 4.87 m. m 8. at the same time the grade beam is connected to a retaining wall which reaches the first floor (see figure 8. 8. The portal frames are constructed witii longitudinal HE 300B and ΒΡΕ 400 main beams for the 8 m spans.4. m 2. m 4.

2 Numerical models and results Numerical model and results for the composite building A 3-D finite element model was set up to evaluate the natural vibration frequencies of the structure as a whole. Details of: (a) column-base joints. f -f HEB 300 or IPE 400 or -welded beam X IPE 270 Π»Ε 370 + > f -Φ. 'nominally' pinned. made with 28 mm diameter steel bars. 143 . In die transversal plane. Sections of the steel roof structure.7.5. ? 1 4 8. (b) (a) » (c) 8. normal to the plane of the main portal frames. (c) longitudinal beam-to-column joints. In die roof plane a cross-bracing system.6. portal frames constructed witii HE 260B beams and welded columns. 8. 1 " 8 I 8 8 . the horizontal deflections are limited by six single-bay.4). In the longitudinal plane die horizontal deflections are limited by the main portal frames and by a brick wall along die first two bays of the A alignment (see figure 8.4). pro¬ vides the necessary in-plane stiffness (see figure 8. The model is made with beam type elements only and is shown in figure 8. Section A-A Dfttr tAifj -δ ι s ι Section B-B 03 1 12. 4. The roofing consists in deep- ribbed tiiin-walled steel decks riveted to me structure. (b) rubber joints. Φ.

. Finite element model of composite structure. 144 . At the time of testing no live or dead weights were present With reference to the internal constraints between the elements. Numerical analyses were earned out for die following cases: . By this as¬ sumption die displacements of the first floor were neglected and only the second story columns and the second floor were modeled. base-fixed columns and no continuity in beam-to-beam and beam-to-column joints (case 2). For me slab and the reinforced concrete beams a density of 2500 kg/m3 was used. In addition. . In spite of this. For the purpose of die analyses. For the steel elements a density of 7850 kg/m3 and manufacturers' cross-nominal areas were assumed.base-pinned columns and full continuity in beam-to-beam and beam-to-column joints (case 1). die internal continuity degree between the elements and the rota¬ tional constraints at the column-bases were assumed as unknown parameters.3) suggests different end con¬ straints between die elements. The mass of the building elements was computed using die shop drawings. die presence of the concrete suggests an increase in the theoretical elastic stiffness.elastically base-restrained columns and full continuity in beam-to-beam and beam- to-column joints (case 4).base-fixed columns and full continuity in beam-to-beam joints (case 3).7. base-fixed columns and full continuity in beam-to-beam and beam-to-column joints (case 5). die connection between the second floor and the existing buiding was considered rigid respect to horizontal dis¬ placements. With reference to the column-bases rotational con¬ straints at first floor. die presence of the concrete wearing around the beams and of bolted con¬ nections between beams and columns (see figure 8. the shop drawings show diat the beams and the top end of die columns were designed as pin-ended. the slab was modeled using cross-brac¬ ings connected to die top end of die columns. . 2 Χ t^j> 8. Due to die presence of the concrete retaining wall. . For these reasons. die basement of the building was considered perfectly rigid. connected to the grade beam and to the first floor.

04 4.08 . was adopted for the numerical study of the steel roofing structure. 5.18 4. the secondary beams were considered as simply supported 145 .10 4.16 4.8.. Natural Frequencies [Hz] Case model mode 2 mode 3 1 1.1.81. Table 8. (b) 2st fundamental mode. Composite structure: (a) 1st fundamental mode. (c) 3rd fundamental mode.87 4.48 5. In the plane of longitudinal multi-bay portal frames and of transversal single-bay ones.1. For case 5 they are shown in fig¬ ure 8.96 2 2.79 3 2.51 5 3.05 4 3. the boundary constraints were assumed to be perfectly rigid with respect to horizontal movements. Due to the fact that the structure rests on a very large and heavy reinforced concrete building. which also makes use of beam type elements only.8. In contrast. Vibrating frequences. Numerical model and results for the steel framework A 3-D finite element model. it is shown in figure 8. U (a) (b) (c) 8. fo The numerical vibrating modes obtained from the analyses are the same for the five cases considered and are essentially horizontal ones.42 5.9.70 5.37 4.The results of the analyses performed in terms of natural vibrating frequencies are summarized in table 8. . full continuity was considered at the top end of the columns and at the ends of beams due to die presence of moment resisting connec¬ tions.

as above with the contributions of the brick wall and of the steel sheeting (case 2).62 The first two modes obtained from numerical analyses are the same for the three cases considered and are essentially horizontal vibrations along the transversal direction.44 3. Y^s 8. Analyses results. As regard the above structure. for case 3. for case 3 they are shown in figure 8.39 5. . Natural Frequencies [Hz] Case model mode 2 1 mode 3 1 2.die bare structure with base-pinned columns (case 1).27 2 2.10. At die time of testing no live or dead weights were present.08 j 4. . Finite element model of steel structure. The numerical analyses were carried out considering die contribution of the bare structure. of the cantilever part of the structure.9. 146 .2): . of the non-struc¬ tural components and of the column-bases constraints. while it is a vertical one.95 il 6. Table 8. The third mode is again an horizontal vibrating mode for cases 1 and 2.32 4. The following cases were con¬ sidered (table 8.as above but witii base fixed-end columns (case 3).58 3 | 4. the masses were computed assuming a density of 7850 kg/m3 for the steel elements. Comparing the results of cases 1 and 2 it is possible to note that for the investigated structure the brick wall does not play an important role on the natural frequencies: this is due to the fact that vibrations related to the natural frequencies are essentially or¬ thogonal to die plane of die wall.2. For the brick wall a density of 1850 kg/m3 and manufacturers' cross-nominal areas were assumed. For the purpose of the analyses die brick wall (along the A alignment in the first two bays) and die profiled steel sheeting were modeled using cross-bracings connected to the nodes of die model.27 3.

11. The tests were carried out by applying a sine force at pre-established points by means of a mechanical exciter.96m . and by recording die accelerations at signifi¬ cant points of the structures by piezometric accelerometers. Steel structure: (a)Tst fundamental mode. The location of the exciter and of the ac¬ celerometers is shown in figure 8. (b) 2st fundamental mode.96 \ 12 Ι ι.11. 147 . The tests were performed by arranging the dynamic exciter so as to provide a sine horizontal force in the plane of the second floor and by recording the horizontal accelerations at the top of the columns.10.Accelerometer and direction of measurement m Dynamic exciter and direction of excitation 8. (a) (b) 8. \ 4Î 5_« Ι β 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 >£ 64. a 200 kg counterrotating masses dynamic exciter was used.5 M8 6? Existing Building \ 36.3 Physical tests Tests description Physical tests on botii stractures were performed to derive the actual values of the nat¬ ural frequencies. For the composite structure. The data was collected by a recording system linked to a function analyser allowing an on-line check of stractural responses. Accelerations were recorded in relation to the stationary response of the stractures for several forcing frequencies and for the free vibrating transients. Location of exciter and accelerometers in the composite structure. 8. 7.

For the steel roofing structure a 50 kg dynamic exciter was used due to the lower total mass. From figure 8.45 Hz can be detected. it can be observed mat die actual first two natural frequencies are respectively 3.12. The forcing frequency ranges from 1 to 8 Hz for both stractures.3 and 6.45 Hz.15 show the accelerations recorded during the stationary response of the structure for forcing frequencies of 3. Results for the composite structure in tenns of natural frequencies.25 and 6.1 Hz. 6 and 7 are influenced more considerably by die second mode dian by the first one. By analyzing the ampli¬ tudes and die phases of each set of data a cantilever movement of the structure along the y axis at 3. 12 shows the loca¬ tion of the exciter and of die accelerometers. and by record¬ ing the horizontal accelerations at the top of the columns. it can be seen from the magnitude of die natural frequencies.13 which illustrates the power spectra of accelerations recorded by accelerometers 1-8 during the free vi¬ bration transients.13.14 and 8.3 Hz and a torsional movement at 6. Figure 8. Location of exciter and accelerometers in the steel structure. in both directions separately. The tests were performed by arranging the dynamic exciter so as to provide a sine horizontal force near die roof plane. 148 .Accelerometer and direction of measurement Cp Dynamic exciter and direction of excitation 8. the results are shown in figure 8. that accelerometers 4. Moreover. . Figures 8.

5 Hz. 3 and 8 are influenced by the second one.59BE-3 G . Moreover. it can be seen from the magnitude of the natural frequencies.802E-3 G PUB SP B han LIN 20Hz X: 3.131E-3 G .864 . 2.i r 20Hz ivi 0 _ 0 ^ã^JS^itUJ^JL·^ PKB SP B han LIN 20Hz X: 6. Free accelerations power spectra for the composite structure.17 and 8.2S8E-3 G X: 6.100Hz Y: .5 Hz can be recognized. The responses of accelerometers 4 and 7 clearly indicate that they are placed in correspondance of nodal points of the lowest natural vibrating modes. From the figure. By analyzing the amplitudes and the phases of each set of data a cantilever movement along die χ axis Of die bottom part of the structure at 4.100Hz Y: .891 E-3 HAG G jUfelltf PMR SP A han LIN 20Hz X: 3.435 ε-3 E-3 UwJwN"*-KjiffiTff-t-tni M PUB SP A han LIN m ri.250Hz Y: . it can be observed that the actual first two natural frequencies are respectively 4.45 and 5.16 which illustrates the power spectra of accelerations recorded by accelerometers 1-8 during the free vi¬ bration transients. that ac¬ celerometers 5 and 6 are influenced by the first mode and that accelerometers 1.386E-3 G 8. PUR SP A han LIN PMR SP8 han UK 20Hz X 3.5 Hz and of the upper part of the structure at 5. 149 . Figures 8.18 show die accelerations recorded dur¬ ing the stationary response of the structure for forcing frequencies of 4.230Hz Y: X: 3.250Hz Y: . the results are shown in figure 8.300Hz Y: .45 Hz. Results for the steel framework In terms of natural frequencies.5 and 5.13.

Recorded data at a forcing frequency of 3. TIME A LIN TIME A LIN . 8.8a) it can be seen diat the actual natural frequency is contained between die values of cases 4 and 5 and that me actual vibrating mode is fully consistent witii tiiose obtained by die same mod¬ els.4 Comparisons Comparisons for the composite structure Comparing the actual first natural frequency and die vibrating mode (figures 8. 150 .14) with the results of numerical models (table 8.348 E-l REAL »W^^^^>a^*s/>*%A^*»^^»*^»^»^W^*^'Wl'^^*«^^.15) with those of numerical models (table 1 and figure 8.13 and 8.14.8b) it can be seen that this frequency is greater than numerical ones and also mat the actual vibrating mode is not consistent witii mose of me same models.348 E-l TIME A LIN TIME 8 LIN 8.1 and figure 8. Comparing the results relative to the actual second natural frequency and the vibrating mode (figures 8.^»' G -.3 Hz for the composite structure. 13 and 8.

348 E-l ^wmmmmmmmm -.357 .349 E-l REAL G -.357 -. is fully consistent witii that obtained from the same model. Comparisons for the steel structure Comparing the actual first natural frequency and the vibrating mode (figures 8.16 and 8.346 E-l REAL S -.354 E-l E-l REAL G -. Indeed.10a) it can be seen the actual natural frequency is satisfactorily consistent with die value obtained from case 3 and the actual vibrating mode.5 Hz.45 Hz for the composite structure. 8.354 E-l E-l TIME A LIN .15. . These results seem to state diat the structure behaves like a frame with full continuity in beam-to-beam and beam-to-column connections while die column-bases are elastically restrained with springs whose rotational stiffness are greater than the nominally elastic ones.349 -i TIME A LIN eSEC TIME B LIN . the actual restraint of the connection with the existing building) which play in effect a more important role in the second mode dian in the first one. 151 . recorded at 4.e.17) with the results of numerical models (table 8.357 E-l. Recorded data at a forcing frequency of 6. the lack of consistence founded in the second mode is probably due to the difficulties in evaluating some boundary restraints (i.2 and figure 8.

16. Comparing the results relative to the actual second natural frequency and the vibrating mode (figures 8. 10b) it can be observed tiiat die actual frequency is slightly overrated but die actual vibrating mode is fully consistent widi tiiat obtained from the same model.4S0HZ PHR SP B han X: 4. 8.460 E-3 E-3 MAG MAG G 6 PMR SP A han LIN PHR SP B han LIN 5.447 E-3 E-3 HAG HAG G G PHR SP A han LIN PHR SP B han LIN X: 5.450Hz Y: X: S.16 and 8.450Hz . . 450Hz Y: X: S.5 Conclusions An investigation was carried out into whether die actual stractural behaviour of buildings at service load levels can be evaluated by means of simple in-situ dynamic tests. 450Hz Y: 8.450Hz Y: PHR SP A han LIN PHR SP B han X: S. The comparison between experimental and numerical results at service loads shows tiiat almost full continuity can be considered in the in service analytical models 152 . The full consistency between numerical and experimental results states that the struc¬ ture behaves like a frame with full continuity between the elements of portal frame structures and also in the connections at die base of die columns.2 and figure 8.442 . Free accelerations power spectra for the steel structure.450Hz Y: X: 5.442 .18) widi those of the case 3 numerical model (table 8.

434 . the results are related to the global behaviour of the building and not to the behaviour of single connections.447 E-2 E-2 REAL REAL G >«»»m<gt>«IM»»WI»W>HW » il»»'*»"!» ι»» HvMlll»illHi««m S m+W'trmrm¥tti*mmr^m&i^^ty»H*i* *<W*i -. and not for the evaluation of the behaviour of single ele¬ ments. enables the global stractural behaviour for 'service load levels' to be evaluated without an excessive design burden.. if properly recognized in numerical models.436 -. it is important to underline that numerical models must be able to decribe the full set of nodal displacements and correctly evaluate the mass distribution on the structure: therefore. though it should be stressed tiiat they are correlated to die type of tested stractures. Recorded data at a forcing frequency of 3.435 -.452 E-2 E-2 REAL REAL G -. 7 E-2 '.17.436 E-2 REAL SEAL G 'II'«« "Hi UH» Htr*«* ' «W»> lW«MH»»M'M»»> .442 E-2 TIME A LIN TIME B LIN 8. This information.452 E-2 E-2 TIME A LIN TIME 8 LIN ACC. .434 -.WWWW S -.435 . consequently me detected qualitative behaviour of the joints can be used only for the evaluation of the global behaviour of the building. 3-D numerical models are necessary. like side-way displacements.3 Hz for the steel structure of both structures. REAL G -. The results obtained provide useful design indications.432 E-2 E-2 TIME A LIN TIME β . Finally. Moreover. 153 . LIN . generally.447 £-2 E-2 TIME A LIN TIME B LIN .

G. Chiarugi. p.442 . In-Situ Dynamic Tests on Ancient Monuments. G ε -.436 -. A. 131-141.. A. Handbook on experimental mechanics.434 . IABSE Colloquium on Monitoring of Large Structures and Assessment of their Safety.447 E-2 E-2 TIME A LIN 20SEC TIME 8 LIN . whose availability and kind collaboration has made it possible to carry out die tests. 1987. 1987.460 E-2 E-2 time A LIN TIME 8 LIN 8. Vol.447 E-2 E-2 REAL REAL G G -. .p.452 E-2 E-2 REAL REAL G G Ν**"*·Μ*Μ»ΙΜ*«>>·Ρ· -. Recorded data at a forcing frequency of 6. Fanelli.452 E-2 e-2 TIME A LIN 20S EC TIME 8 LIN X: 2. The authors wish to express their deep thanks to Fratelli Dioguardi S. Giuseppetti and M.A.432 E-2 E-2 REAL REAL G G -.460 e-2 E-2.434 -. 154 .435 . NJ.S31E-5 G . die finn responsible for die construction work.436 . Englewood Cliffs.45 Hz for the steel structure.S.. 56. REAL REAL. Castoldi.18. References A.442 -. Kobayashi (editor).432 ε-2 E-2 TIME A LIN TIME 8 LIN .051 SEC Y: .435 -.

9. are well understood. re¬ quired die systematic observation of a large number of structures over a period of sev¬ eral years to obtain useful data. This is illustrated by figure 9. They represent common beliefs based upon past experience and practice and are thus written to give designers as much freedom of action as possible.). The review conducted throughout the project showed a rich literature but rather patchy. further testing of real stractures in needed in order to include die correct parameters of me non-stractural element in the analysis. 1 for a typical low rise office building. is the complexity and magnitude of work that is needed. are not based upon sys¬ tematic research. 9.9 Summary of major findings The major findings of this report have been summarised. creep. This is partly due to legal considerations The main problem. Ultimate limit state models normally include only stractural components (die bare steel frame). Both types of tools must be used to separate structurally related serviceability problems non-strac¬ tural serviceability problems (such as the effects of water penetration. Only recently have tools been developed which enable researchers to measure the instantaneous behaviour of a real structure. This summary does not include conclusions and recommendations for further research. chemical attack. however. More and more computer software are including serviceability aspects in their struc¬ tural analyses. Design rules for serviceability. A substantial amount of research has been conducted concerning model predictions and building response to loads at ultimate 155 . These models may be linear (first order) or non-linear (higher order). The purpose of this summary is to give die reader a clear view of the work that has been completed and its practical implications. However.2 Measured in-service behaviour of steel-framed buildings The real behaviour of steel-framed buildings at serviceability load levels can be quite different from that predicted by ultimate limit state design models. This reflects increasing concerns about building quality as opposed to stractural safety. A systematic compilation of serviceability related problems is not available. etc. Using them. Tools for measuring long term effects such as foundation movements.1 Design codes and serviceability problems in steel-framed buildings The literature survey conducted on serviceability showed tiiat the issue is recognised to be an important design consideration most national and international standards and codes of practice. however. etc. however. These are presented in chapter 10.

In other cases. First. At service load levels. modified to include non-structural components (exterior cladding and interior parti¬ tions). A first-order bare steel frame structural model can reasonable predict measured building re¬ sponse. such models can be excessively conservative. non-stractural components may be in¬ cluded in design models at service load levels. It is thus not surprising that the ultimate limit state of a real structure should be relatively well predicted. however. 156 . This project has shown that real building stiffness can exceed die bare steel frame stiffness a factor of 6. the designer may choose to isolate structural and non-stractural compo¬ nents. As shown in figure 9. This can be done by providing attachments which transfer minimal force until allowable lateral drift have been exceeded. The effects of ignoring non-stractural components at service load levels have several implications.limit states. Two rational alternatives are possible. This approach is typically used for glass curtain walls in high-rise office buildings.1. ln ORDER ANALYSIS INCLUDING STRUCTURAL AND NON-STRUCTURAL CQHPDCNTS ln ORDER ANALYSIS OF THE BARE STEEL FRAME HIGHER ORDER ANALYSIS OF THE BARE STEEL FRAME LATERAL SWAY 9. The designer then must check model predictions for each cladding. ignoring non-struc¬ tural components can be the root cause of serviceability problems.1. can reasonable predict measured building response. These are listed in table 9. Secondly. To do this the initial in-plane stiffness of the cladding. a first-order bare steel frame structural model. In some cases ignoring non-structural com¬ ponents can lead to an overly conservative design. partition and attachment to ensure that imposed forces (or deformations) re¬ main within reasonable limits. partitions and attachments between stractural and non-stractural com¬ ponents must be know. 1.

2 we may conclude that even though non-structural components are ca¬ pable of vastly reducing lateral drift in low or medium rise office and residential buildings. The idealised curves shown in figure 9. the force that they are subjected to increase accordingly.1.1 are not typical for all steel framed buildings. However. 9. m general.2 die service load behaviour of different types of steel framed buildings and the economic importance of serviceability considerations are shown. much more rigid than the steel frame. structural response An apparently symmetric structure may in reality behave non-symmetri- cally. Table 9. and by no means. Effect Result increased lateral stiffness As the importance of nön-structural components increases. No reduction in building cost would thus be expected. represent an indication of die actual in-service performance. Building type Behaviour under service load Economic importance of conditions serviceability requirements low or medium-rise office or dominated by non-structural low residential buildings components high-rise office or residential dominated by structural com¬ high buildings ponents long span commercial and variable high industrial buildings From table 9. Oversizing steel members may not eliminate serviceability problems as non-structural components are. decreased lateral drift Steel members may be oversized to limit lateral drifts that do not occur. Their effec¬ tiveness and reliability is heavily dependent upon die structural model adopted by the 157 . existing serviceability requirements do not penalise steel construction. deflection limits recommended by codes were empirically established. In table 9. The potential to use existing cladding to re¬ duce costs in long-span stractures is thought to be the greatest Use can be made Of me well known principles underpining stressed skin design. The effects of ignoring non-structural component participation. modified cladding has recently been designed to control lateral drift in an existing high rise office building. Serviceability is indicated to be of economic importance if existing design rules require increasing steel frame member sizes. For high-rise stractures exist¬ ing cladding can not in most cases be used.2. High forces may result in un¬ foreseen serviceability problems.3 Design models at serviceability load levels In the past. Serviceability considerations for different steel framed building types. Serviceability is Of least economic importance if existing design rales require no action to be taken. Ibis increases building costs for no gain. The resulting torsional response may cause serviceability prob¬ lems. Table 9. For long-span and high-rise struc¬ tures the cost reduction potential is high.

These advantages often overshadow increases in frame flexibility associated witii the use of semi-rigid joints in lieu of rigid joints. Incorporating of these aspects in the design process may provide substantial economic benefits at serviceability and ultimate strength load lev¬ els. A first-order elastic analysis would be adequate to justify such advantages. Significant advantage may be achieved just by accounting for its presence. A good example of such effects is light steel cladding. This is a radier simple task. may be neglected. cladding and panel action can have a substantial influence on structural re¬ sponse at service load levels.E. should not oc¬ cur at service load levels. Therefore.designer. These represent the principle phenomena inducing non-lin¬ earity. Economically it is of great importance that a designer can re-use ultimate limit state models to perform service limit state calculations. Method Advantage Disadvantage Diagonal truss Simple Not flexible. panels and die bare steel frame.3. clearly indicate that joint. as indicated in table 9. openings and geometric irregularities into their formulation. doors and windows. Models adopting a F. Not all designers have Flexible. Plate elements More complicated. Table 9. Geometric irregularities are access to programs witii plate elements. Difficult to account for elements geometric irregularities such as panel aspect ratio. It has been observed that the in-plane shear stiffness of cladding and panels is strongly related to the shear stiffness of their base material(s). The numerical analyses presented in the previous chapters. tearing or buckling and attachment movements etc. each witii par¬ ticular advantages and disadvantages. small or large openings are auto¬ matically included. Advantages and disadvantages of different calculation methods including the effects of cladding at service load levels. The reliability of diagonal truss models is hampered by two problems: the limited number of existing guide-lines. In fact concrete cracking or crushing. The basic behavioural feature to be satisfactorily approximated is die in-plane shear stiffness of the cladding and panel at service load levels. 158 . mesh witii plate elements possess a distinct advantage due to their adaptability: variations in in-plane shear stiffness due to die panel aspect ratio. easily accounted for. however. steel plastification. it should be emphasized tiiat in many instances the effect of me cladding or panel action is so large tiiat even a rather inaccurate model may be sufficient for design purposes. An area requiring more investigation is including the effects of cladding and panels widi the bare steel frame.3. Potential problems arise mainly when modelling the interconnec¬ tion between cladding. and by uncertainties of how to incorporating the ef¬ fects of aspect ratio. due to die predominandy linear elastic response. These two factors are in fact inter-dependent On the other hand. Two ways of doing this have been explored. and thus. serviceability limit models are traditionally defined using elastic models including of the bare steel frame with ideal restraint conditions.

numerical models available to designers are rapidly increasing in sophistication and decreasing in cost These simultaneous developments will have a significant im¬ pact on future serviceability assessments. it should be stressed diat the present state-of-the art concern¬ ing the behaviour of buildings at service load levels is rapidly improving. 159 .Furthermore. As concluding remarks. The first step in dus direction should be to provide a direct link between design models and a steel framed buildings real be¬ haviour at service load levels. in situ dynamic tests confirm the important role played even by the 'single' framing connections. At me same time. It thus seems that the time has arrived to re¬ vise present serviceability limit state criteria. A satisfactory appraisal of the stractural stiffness was in fact achieved when full continuity was considered within the framework and at the baseplates.

Literature research. Existing code provisions for serviceability are inadequate. Design models should include both stractural and non-structural components. The relationship between actual building behaviour at service load levels and de¬ sign models should be established. .The basis of existing serviceability limits for the design of steel framed buildings.Serviceability design models for steel framed buildings.1 Recommendations The following recommendations are proposed: Full-scale buildings tests should be continued to estimate the actual static response to lateral loads of a variety of common steel framed buildings. This search should also include strength or deformation limits to serviceability for each component investigated. and the compilation of data sheet information. should be con¬ tinued for the initial stiffness of common non-structural elements and connections be¬ tween structural and non-stractural elements. 160 . . .Serviceability limits to the strength or deformation capacity of non-stractural ele¬ ment and connections between structural and non-structural elements commonly used with steel framed construction. design models and serviceability limits remains unknown. This was ob¬ served by dynamic testing and predicted by modelling.10 Conclusions and recommendations Major conclusions from this study are listed as follows: There is little useful information contained in existing literature concerning the fol¬ lowing subjects: . 10.The initial stiffness of non-stractural elements and connections between structural and non-stractural elements commonly used with steel framed construction. . A wide range of common steel frame building types and uses should be included in this study. The relationship be¬ tween actual building behaviour at service load levels. Non-stractural components dominate the static structural response to lateral loads at service load levels for many types of common steel frames buildings.Serviceability problems in existing steel framed buildings.

. New code provisions for serviceability should be proposed for use in EC3: Part I: General rules and rules for buildings. 161 . These models should be as similar as possible to those used for ultimate load calculations. .Load levels to be used for serviceability calculations.New serviceability limits. These rules should included the following: .Mormation on the modelmg of non-stractural components.Acceptable types of analysis. .

(6) D. (2. (6) D. Institute for Research in Construction.K. p. 162 . Masonry columns under horizontal loads: A comparison between finite element modelling and experimental results. (CIB-W85). M. Load & Resistance Factor Design. Journal of Structural Division.E. National Research Council of Canada. Department of Engineering. 3) Ad Hoc Committee on Serviceability Research. 11 Literature list for all related references This chapter contains a list of all references that were reviewed during the redaction of this report References used in individual chapters) are identified by brackets. 'Response of buildings to lateral forces'. Nethercot and R. 112.A. Ottawa. Allen. Fifth North American Masonry Conference. National Research Council of Canada.12. ACI Committee 435. Canada. Amrhein. Ohio. G. USA. Schriever. February 1985. Cerone and P. p. The numbers in the brackets correspond to the chapters in which the reference appears. International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering IABSE Survey S-39/87. 1990. 1987. Zandonini. (6) American Institute of Steel Constuction. Elastic Analysis of Semi-Rigid Steel Frames. June 1990. Andreaus. causes. April. Canada (CIB-W85). 469-478. Research Report CE/17. p. p. M.E. 1968. p. Institute for Research in Construction. February 1985. Merrigan. Floor vibrations from aerobics. Analysis and Design of Steel Frames with Semi-Rigid Connections. 2646-2664. Serviceability and structural standards. F. (2) ACI Committee 442. D. Cleveland.R. Melbourne Australia. M. Journal of the American Concréte Institute.H. No. Proceedings of the 7th interna¬ tional brick masonry conference. Ottawa. Vol. Bijlaard. D.479-488. Anderson. 'Allowable deflections'. ASCE.S. ASCE National meeting on Structrual Engineering. 'Structural Serviceability: A critical appraisal and research needs'. Committee on Research of the Structural Division. 1986. Structural failures. Ceradini. April 1972. Modes. For mese references no chapter number is given. R. Melbourne Australia. (5) J. References that are of interest but that do not appear in the text are included here for completness. Hatch and M. December 1986. DJB. 1417-1424. Journal of the American Concrete Institute. Manual of Steel Construction.E. 21-47. D. A finite element model for the analysis of ma¬ sonry structures under cyclic actions.W. Allen and W. 1985. Andreaus. Ceradini. Anderson. Cerone and P. M. D'Asdia. First Edition. responsibilities (ASCE publica¬ tion). D'Asdia. Ontario. University of Warwick. p. Ontario. Anchor connections of stone slabs. p. 1971. G. 81-106. Allen. 433-444. Proceedings of the 7th international brick masonry conference.

Haifa. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Baker. Nader. R.R.A. 'Response of Masonry Bed Joints in Direct Shear'. R.F. Stiffening effect of light cladding. November 1990. S. August 21- 26. Loading tests of building structures. (3) Australia Standards AS4100. 115. p.(2) ASCE Committee on Design of Steel Building Structures. Bases for the design of structures: Deformations of buildings at the serviceability limit states.A. 'Rotational behaviour of End Plate Connections'. 'Design of Tee Framing Shear Connections'.L. Proceedings Tall Buildings: 2000 and beyond. February 1989. 1972. American Institute of Steel Construction. Davies. p. ACSE National Structural Engineering Meeting. R. (6) A. Atkinson.H. 2. Journal of the Structural Division. 74-103. 678-685. 1991. JJL. (6) E. On serviceability requirements regarding deformations. April 1974. 1 14. 2085-2108. Beüüehem. Astaneh and MJi. Lehigh University. p. Proceedings of the 9m international brick masonry conference. 'Wind drift design of steel-framed build¬ ings. 1957. Bases for design of structures. CIB W85 Reference Document R91: IB. First Quarter. 2276-2296. October 1990. National Research Council.H. British Standard Institution. 163 . ISO/TC 98/SC2. 'The behaviour of one storey reinforced concrete shear walls'. 643-651. First edition. Ohio. Berlin.Israel Institute of Technology. (2) R. The stressed skin design of steel buildings. (2) A. Wiliam. Journal of the Structural Division. Engineering Journal. B. p. Structural serviceability aspects of building envelopes in tall buildings. ASCE. (6) J. 1977-11-15. p. 1991 (Translated from Russian). Sep. Israel (CD3-W85). The use of structural steel in buildings (1990). National Building Research Institute. 1990. Vol. Atkinson.1988. Serviceability of buildings against vibration. ASCE.R.A. 1972.C. Costruzioni Metalliche. Zandonini and P. p. ISO/DIS 10137. 293- 322. Cleveland. Steel Structures Code. on Planning and Design of Tall Buildings. Benjamin and H. p. Otstavnov and L. Zanon. 9. Crosby-Lockwood-Staples. October 1991. (6) C. Berlin. No. Proceedings of the symposium/workshop on serviceability of buildings. Technion . Proceedings of the International Coñf. 1989. Sizing techniques for lateral systems in multi-storey buildings. 1990. Lab tests on small scale brick masonry buildings. (3) BS 5950. Bryan and JJM. Hart. p. Noland and G. International Standard ISO 4356. (2) W. May 1988. Calderoni. Bergmann. F. (5) R. 83 (ST5) Paper 1254. (2) E. Properties of masonry materials of limit states design. 600-611. Sæb and S. State-of-the-art report'. Proceedings of the 9th international brick masonry conference. V.I-1990. Lemysh. Bares. Bat. Amadéi. Vol. Sture. On deflections and displacements.9. Bryan. Canada.P. 454-554. B. Pennsylvania.R. No. Bljuger. Vol. Bernuzzi.

Castoldi. Rotterdam and die Concrete Association. Eurocode 3. Premature Deterioration of Building Enclosures in High-Rise Structures. 131-141. Ottawa. A post processor for the SAP90 Finite Element Analysis Program. Building Research Association of New Zealand. 8. Structural Connections.M.W. 1990. Vol. 'Inelastic Buckling of Semi-Rigid Swày Frames'. pp. Calvi. 2. Colorado. Canada. 113. Report NRC/ CNR TT-1969. IABSE Colloquium on Monitoring of Large Structures and Assessment of their Safety. Cosenza. A.S. Febuary 1985. November 1990. Sources of elastic deformation in laterally loaded steel frame and tube structures. Denver. 1397-1416. A. 2e Partie. Tall Buildings: 2000 and Beyond. Design methods based on stiffness. General Rules and Rules for Buildings. (2) F. G. 1992. Chandler. Proceedings of the 7th international brick masonry conference. BRANZ study report. Hong Kong. In-Situ Dynamic Tests on Ancient Monuments. Choi and M. 164 . Charney.2 (2) R. G. DISPAR for SAP. 101. 1988. Khan. Pecce. Ameny. Serviceability criteria for &HiWmgs. 2423-2436. Denver. 1973.R. (2) C.S. ASCE. Council on Tall buildings and Urban Habitat. p. (2) Canadian Institute for Scientific and Technical Information. Fifth North American Masonry Conference. (4) M. 'Plate Element with Cut-out for Perforated Shear Wall'. Replacement ofdefective precast concrete wall panels with brick masonry veneer without relocating building tenants. 1991. Charney. Cosenza. p. Cowie and P. J. Bang. Faella. (5) J. p. 'Nonlinear Design of Reinforced Concrete Continuous Beams'. Vol. E. Fifth North American Masonry Conference. London. Limitation desflèches. June 1990. No. 6) Commission of the European Communities. (2) F. J. ASCE. Harris and Company. Fanelli. Melbourne Australia. Vol. (6) E. C. Part 1. 1987. LE. Cooney and A. Report SR14. No. 'Bibliography on Wood and Plywood Diaphragms'.R. Vol. joint publication of die Steelbuilding Association. Advanced Structural Concepts Division. Zoetenneer. 56. 1988. Fourth World Conference. Journal of the Structural Division. (8) A. p. p. 201-214. Design of Steel Concrete Composite Structures. Manuel de calcul 'Flèches'. 1371-1384. Chiarugi. Vol. 1990. p. London 1988. De Luca and C. 'Elastic Buckling of Semi-Rigid Sway Frames'. (3. June 1990. GJM. Eurocode 4. p. A. 1249-1256A. (6) Commision of die European Communities. Cosenza. Giuseppetti and M. Cheung and J. Februaiy 1987. Macchi and P. p. General Rules and Rules for Buildings. Stability and Strength. Parti. Greco and M. ST11. Structural Connections. De Luca and C.B. Random cyclic behaviour of reinforced masonry under shear ac¬ tion. (6) E.C. Carney. 1991. Colorado. Zanon. Journal of the Structural Division. 297-335. Design of steel structures. Stability and Strength. Harris and Company. 253-296. Deformation requirements for buildings. 1980. King. 19-27. CEB. 8. February 1975. (5) J.-K. Structural Engineering International 1/91. Faella. IABSE. Defects and Repairs to Brick Panels Walls in High Rise Buildings.

Eibl and R. Vol. 'Stainless steel in building'. Building Science Series 62. 2460-2478. Sweden. Cattaneo. 17-54. Dallaire. Interaction ofstructural elements with cladãng. (3.Office buildings and shopping centres. Rüsch. p. M. 24. 68. Bauingenieur (1990) 65. Proceedings of the International Conference on Planning and Design of Tall Buildings. 'Semi-rigid action of composite joints'. Gravitational and Temperature Deformations.A. R. Vibration of low-frequency floors . Steel Construction Today. National Bureau of Standards. National Bureau of Standards. Dawe and T. Pennsylvania. Göteborg. Journal of Structural Engineering. 110. Davison. (5) J. February 1985. 1977. 803-814. Document D32: 1980. Melbourne Australia. Deformation limits for roofs and walls for profiled sheeting. P. National Steel Construction Conference. p. Melbourne Australia. ASCE. Foomani and R. Vol. VoL 6. Serviceability Guide-lines for Steel Structures. J. June 1988. Proceedings of the 7th international brick masonry conference. B. Fallon. p. Report PB-252 170.G. Dodds.B. No. 1980. Febuary. 1981. Deflection Performance Criteria for Floors. Theory and practice. Research Studies Press Ltd. Proceedings öf the 7th international brick masonry conference. No. 675-683. Sweden.C.T. G. Dawe and R.B. p. 1990.A. April. Yong. p. 'Formulas for Wood Shear Walls'. 1984. ST11. Floor Vibrations'. Lehigh University. USA. Melbourne Australia. Eriksson. Page and Kleeman. ASCE. Experimental investigation of the shear resistance ofmasonry panels in steel frames. (5) J. B. January 1983.A. January 1992. (6) J.H. (CIB-W85). England. 'Structural Serviceability. McBride. 1987. An investigation offactors influencing the behaviour of masonry infill in steelframes subjected to in-plane shear.B. (5) Jl. Stockholm. p. Deformations in multi-storey steel structures. November 1982. Nethercot. No. Lam and D. Rotational Stiffness Characteristics of Steel Beam-to- Column Connections Joint Flexibility in Steel Frames. Nethercot. (5) S.T. 'Schwingungsprobleme in einem FuszbaUstadion'. 108. European Convention for Constructie« Steelwork (ECCS). Easley. Civil Engineering. 1976. 7-11. D. 'Inspecting Buildings: Are we doing a good enough job?'. p. Fattal and L. Chalmers University of Technology. P. (7) DJ.E. 1972. Journal of the Structural Division. Modal Testing. No. Tallin. (5) Dhana. August 21-26. p. Dubas. (5) Jl. p. London. Kirby and D. Douhan. 307-311. Evaluation of Structural Properties of Masonry in Existing Buildings. Ellingwood and A. December 1990. p. Vol.l. 791-801. The behaviour of'brick masonry under biaxial stress with particular refer ence to infilled frames. Crist and JJt Shaver. Florida.. 2. 401-418. Ewins.A. Swedish Council for Building Research. 1-117. Ellingwood. 1986. 165 . Proceedings of the 7th international brick masonry conference. p. (6) J. 5) L. (2) P. 815-824. The Structural Engineer. Bethlehem. February 1985. 489-499. Davison. February 1985.

(5) Glass in Building. 17.A. 889-905.V. Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Journal. Vol. Journal of the Structural Division.K. p. February 1987. JX. Hong Kong. October 1973. Engineering.5. Journal of the Structural Division. ASCE. A Uterature and state-of-the-art survey. Gould.-Apr. 'Serviceability limit states.P. ACSE National structural engineering meeting. (5) C. F. ASCE. p. May-June 1967. Proceeding of the International Conference: The Mexico Earthquake . Grimm. 101. April 1976. On the limitation of lateral displacement in designing steel frames. December 1983. Ravindra. p. London. 4. Tall Buildings: 2000 and Beyond.R. FitzSimons and A. No. Gartner. Grimm. No. Journal of the Structural Division. M. 307-316. F. (2) R. The use offull and large scale testing. (5) AK. Fourth World Congress.. 'Metal Ties and Anchors for Brick Walls'. Zurich.K. ASCE.3) D. 19-21 September 1986. West. Bauingenieur (1990) 65. N. Longinow. Vol. (2. ACI. L.1985. Clarke and G. January 1975. 'Damping of Frames with Visco-elastic In-fill Panels'. Seminar/Workshop on serviceability limit states for steel buildings. 72. 'Reduzierung von beim Tanzen erzeugten Bauwerksschwingungen durch Schwingungstilger'. No. Ellingwood.37. 1989. Serviceability design considerations for low-rise buildings. 108. IABSE Woiking commission Π. Gasparini. p. 'Strength and Related Properties of Brick Masonry'. No. Structural deflections. T. p. Fossas. Ellingwood. ST12.V. (5) F. Garas. P. 'Static and Dynamic Analysis of Timber Shear Walls'. Galambos and B. Gaiotti and B.T. U. 1987. 166 . Armer (editors). 113. ST5. 'Stiffening of moment-resisting frame by precast amerete cladding'. Vol. Implications of structural characteristics on failure. Vol. Commentary on recommended practice for load tests on existing buildings andfull-scale prototypes. (3) T. 107. H. 241-259. National Bureau of Standards. no. p. p. Gerasch. American Concrete Institute Journal. p.S. No. Kuo.L.S.A. 'Modelling of a Wood-Framed House'. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Ohio. Gupta and G. p. Crist. Mexico City. Fisher and M-. 43-651. (2) D. 313-318. p. July 1975. 'Deflections of High-Rise Concrete Buildings'.V. Vol. ASCE. 1637-1652. Design and Cb/isTracíion. 80- 92. 'Serviceability limit states: Connection slip'. Golembiewski. 8-15.S. Building Research. ST4. 7. May 1981. ASCE. Filiatrault.W. Smith. 112. 1986. No. Vol. April 1974. WJ. No. Journal of the Structural Division. p. Vol. 1990. No.T. Journal of Structural Engineer. T. Galambos. (3) JJM. M.(5) A. 67-84. ASCE. Cleveland. Reinhold and Β. November 1990. 217-233. Fintei. September/October 1992. 102. DebChaudbury. Deflections'. April 1. Canadian Journal of Civil. (3) T. Jan. Vol. Structural Assessment. 839-858. Journal of the Structural Division.A. Suiyoutomo and R. Department of Commerce. Cuny and A. Building Science Series 47. Galambos. Design Aspects of Curtain Walls of High-Rise Buildings. 2. STI. August 1990. (5) CT.

E. March 1982. 113. p. A survey'. February 1989. Jeary and B.(5) A.A. Institute of Structural Engineers. April 1991.R. held at Imperial College. ASCE. (5) RJvI. distortions and vibrations. February 1985. Research Report CE/010491.D. Krishnamoorty.G. R. Proceedings of the 7th international brick masonry conference. ACSE National meeting on structural engineering. (5) G. September 1977. Department Of Civil and Structural Engineering. A Study of the Measured and Predicted Behaviour of a 46-Storey Building. BJE. London. 133-137.B.W. ACSE: Structural failures: modes. (5) Italsider. The determination of Modal Wind Loads from Full-Scale Building Response Measurement. Strength determination and shearfailure modes ofunre- inforced brick masonry with low strength mortar. August 1979. Castiflo. p. Ho and SX. Deak. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. (2) A.RJEUis. Janey. Holicky and G. Vol. Proceedings of the 7th international brick masonry conference. 1327-1337. Hegemier and G. April 1. Heidebracht and S. Melbourne Australia. Jeary. A. On the effect of non linearity and joint flexibility in lateral drift determi nation of steel buildings. Lee and P.P. responsibilities. p. Melbourne Australia. (4) J. causes. April 1972.P. Draft for CIB Programme W85. (2. Il comportamento delle strutture portentidi acciaio dteazoinisismiche. Journal of the Structural Division. Kuo. September 1964. (2) RJP. Kariotis. 6. 114- 154.W.R. 1989.7. p. Journal of the Structural Division.C.C. 1268-1284.K.M. Conference of the correlation between calculated and observed stresses and displacements in ííracíHreí. February 1988. The International Conference on environmental forces on engineering buildings. Vol. p. No. July 1979. The International Conference on environmental forces on enginêer- ing buildings. Febuary 1985. London. Ewing and A. p. 11-20. Holicky. Johnson. Report of a committee on the testing of structures. Journal of the Structural Division. Basic principles of the control of serviceability. London. (2) A. J. Gutkowski and AX. February 1987. Smith.l. M. 'Wood-Framed Shear Walls with Uplift'.114. London. p. p. 167 . National Bureau of Standards. ASCE. Barber. No. 578. held at Imperial College. (CB3-W85). An Experimental Study of Concrete Masonry Under Seismic Type Loading. 637-652. A.Monograpayno. 260-278. Indagine sperimentale sulla duttilità di pannelliparete in lamiera grecta. 4) M.and Double Sheathed Wood Shear Wall Study'. p. Hong Kong Polytechnic. Zurich. Huggins and JJD. July 1979. Johnson. 105. Sqrtembêr 1955. Deflection of continuous beams in steel frames with composite floors of steel and con crete. Vol. Institute of Structural Engineers.C. 2. 'Building deflection. Limit state design of masonry in the United States. 'Approximate Analysis of Tall Wall-Frame Stractures'. Qeveland. Sabbi. IABSE Working commis¬ sion Π. 'Single. (2) W. Gupta and G. R. 3. (2) M. Englekirk and T. VoL 9. No. Fuzzy criteria ofserviceability limit states.P. Chan. G. Building Science Series 106. No. Hart. Seminar/Workshop on serviceability limit states for steel buildings. ASCE. 1417-1425. Ohio. Sparks.

Part 2. Part 2. December 1967. Venuti. Chen. T. London. MacLeod. No. Vol. 7. July 1990. 1281-1290. 1971. p. RJL Leicester and L. 117. 'On the stiffness and strengths of infilled frames'. Kuhlmann. Okamoto. July 1985. No. 'Unified Plastic Analysis for Infilled Frames'. 1987. A study of structural behaviour of brick panel walls. April 1. Berlin. Zurich.T. (6) T. Kato. S. CSIRO Division of Building. Ill. 1427-1448. 'The behaviour of infilled frames under static loading'.F. (2) B. (6) N. Construction and Engineering. September 1980. Severn. p. Vol. Limits of the Shear Carrying Capacity of Masonry. 62-66. Maison and CE. The Structural Engineer. ASCE. p. Marek and WJ. Proceedings of the Institution of Ovil Engineers.-G. Melbourne Australia.C. 71. IABSE Working commission Π. Journal of the Structural Division. T. J. 1990. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers.H. Journal of the Structural Division. Australia. No. Liauw and K. Mathez. Slender footbridges. Kubota. NJ. Kessler.F. Melbourne. p. 1987 (CIB-W85).. The Institution of Engineers. (2) U. Handbook on experimental mechanics. (8) A. 'Moment-Rotation Relations of Semi-Rigid Connections with Angles'.V. H.A. 1990. Melbourne. No. Vol. 38. Bbu and I. Nishitani and S. P. San Jose. 168 . Seminar/Workshop on serviceability limit states for steel build ings. 12. Vol. Y. On Combinations of Load Effects. Pham. Pham. El. Australia.A. (CB3-W85). Vol. p. 'Determination of collapse loads with and without openings'. 115462. 790-799.H. September 1977. 1 16. Beresford. 63. 1990. Liauw. p.W. San Jose State University. p. Englewood Cliffs. (2) T. 7. RJ. 'Dynamic Analysis of Thirteen-Story Building'. D. The institute of Civil Engineers. R. Kishi and W. February 1985. Kwan. ASCE. 215-233. October 1990. Mainstone. 1971. p. Lee. 3. Vol. CIB Committee W23. Kobayashi (editor).C. California. 'Experimental Tests on Brick Beams Under In-Plane Bending Conditions'. 'Steel Frames with Concrete Infills'. 3783-3803. 58B. (4) RJL Leicester and L. 1988. S.: Steel-Concrete Composite Structures.S. Victoria. Journal of Structural Engineering. 641-656. USA. Maffick and R. On developing an Australian limit states code. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers. March 1981. CSIRO Division of Building.D. Australia. Ventura. 57-90. No. December 1991. 55. Serviceability limits. A probabilistic model for serviceability specifications. Leicester and F. 1989. Victoria. Proceedings of the 9th interna¬ tional brick masonry conference. May. Vol. Liauw and S. Stability and Strength. p. Construction and Engineering. (2) MIS. Proceedings of the 7ui international brick masonry conference. Recommendations relative to permissible deformations and deflections of structures. Supplement P^er 7360 S. p.C. On the behaviour and analysis of multi-storey infilled frames subject to lateral loading. Magd.

C. 65. Mazzolani and F.M. D £. 2. 270-289. 3. p. National Bureau of Standards. P. Ohlsson. Pfiang and F. Ill. Ingegneria sismica.A. G. Perugia. 1453-14S2. An introudction to random vibrations and spectoral analysis. causes. April 1972. Journal of the Structural Division. Sylos Labini. Sweden. O. Structural Connections. McDonald. 23-62. 1990. Fissuration de maçonneries.O. No. MilL Fundamental Considerations Prior to Diagnosing Total Building Performance. p.R. Mehta and J. No. Qeveland.T. Chalmers University of Technology. Perdikaris and R. San Francisco. S. Journal of the Structural Division. Structural Serviceability of commercial steel buildings. Sweden (CIB-W85). Vol. 'Racking Deformations in Wood Shear Walls'.A. Serviceability criteria. vol 56. p. p. S. (6) S. 1984. 1991. (6) FJM. 1991. 'Dynamic load factors for pedestrian movements and rhythmic exercises'.250. Building Research Division. 1988.). Ohio. Peraica. No. 30-47. Yokel. 1990. (5) WJ. Technical Information Note No. (6) F. ASCE. 1990. P. Structural evaluation of a building system. Annales de l'Institute technique du bâtiment et des traveauxpublics. L'effetto pelle nelle strutture sismo-resistenti di acciaio (in Italian). 1967. Piluso. Ohlsson and PJE. Vol. 257-269. ACSE National meeting on structural engineering. London.C. (8) Monitoring ofLarge Structures and Assessment of their Safety.N. Eriksson. Minor.Y. ASCE. especially floor vibration criteria. 'Shear Modulous of Precracked R/C Panels'. 1991 Nordic Steel CoUoquium. (4) JJS. p. 8. Mazzolani and V. February 1985. 'Methods of Prediction of Joint Behaviour: Beam-to-Column Connections'. Ohlsson. L. 26. 1983. E. ACSE: Structural failures: modes. p. Stiffness Criteria and Dynamic Serviceability of Light-Weight Steel Floors. IABSE. 1987. Springiness and human-inducedfloor vibrations. S. Swedish Council for Building Research. Stability and Strength. Newland. 49-73. responsibili ties. 1 1 1. McCulcheon. General as¬ pects and vibrations. 169 . International Journal for Numerical methods in Engineering. Odense (CIB-W85). On the interaction between masonry filler walls and enclosing frame when loaded in the plain of the walls. Zandonini. Proceedings of the DC National Conference on Steel Construction (C. (CIB-W85). AD. Pfefferman. Stockholm. (6) D. Structural performance criteria. New York. S. Ostlund. 1960. Joint Committee on Structural Safety (CIB-W85). 196%. Canadian Acoustics 18(2)3-18(1990) (CIB-W85). Earthquake Engineering Institute. 1991 International timber engi¬ neering conference Londen. Vol. 'Les fissures dans les constnictions'. 'A Finite Element Model for the Analysis of Flexibly Connected Steel Frames'. Gothenburg. Pfefferman. Building Science Series 25. (6) C Poggi. 'Skin effect in pin-jointed steel structures' (in English).No. February 1985. Nethercot and R. K. Vol. 1988.V. White. 2. Centre scientifique et technique de la construction. Anno VH. Ployakov. Ohlsson. O. 1988.

'The allowable settlements of buildings'.V. 89-102.W. 13. November 1990. Proceeãngsofthe Institution of Civil Engineers. No. ASCE. Moody. Polyakov.S. Sato and M. 243-263. Hendry. VoLlOl.(6) S.S. October 1971. Wolde-Tinsae and M. Hypothesis for shear Failure in Masonry Joints. RP. 1.W. February 1985. Ahmed. Sinha and A. 1989. Institute of Qvil Engineers. 'Approximating Lateral Stiffness of Stories in Elastic Frames' Journal of the Structural Division. 'A method of analysis for infilled frames'. BP. 1976. Kerfoot and Drueger. February 1976. Schultz. Stafford Smith and B. Vol. 'Structural testing of brickwork in a disused quarry'. Supplements.W. Hendry. p. Edition 1979. January 1975. Proceedings of the International Conference on Planning and Design of Tall Buildings. 'Behaviour of Brick Masonry Shear Walls'. 317-332.Z. Effect of Precast Concrete Cladding of the Behaviour of Tall Buildings. Vol.-April 1985. No. Melbourne Australia. ASCE. 876-887. (2) B. Earthquake Engineering Institute.R. Stl. (2) B. (2) M. (2) JJ3 . Part L Vol. Porta-. p. Skempton and D. p. Loads and effects. (2) AJi. p. (5) J. 135-150. Deflections and Displacements. 115. 727-784. Schmidt and R. Vol.September 1981. (2. Hendry. Carter. Samarasinge. Behaviour of composite brick walls. May 1956. Vol. (2) B. 201-217. 64.M. Carter. (2) K. Vol. A. Yoshida. Vol. Riddington and M. p. (5) B. January 1992.P.S. April 1. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers.W. 43. (5) J.4) A. Stratford Smith and R. August 21-26. p. p.H. Journal of the Structural Division. MX. ASCE. Vol. Bethlehem. Hong Kong. 89. The Structural Engineer. Zurich. 1989. 1. September 1969. Scalzi and A. 118. p. San Francisco. (2) RJ. Qamaruddin. Lehigh University. 59B. 'The stability of a five storey brickwork cross-wall structure following the removal of a section of a main load bearing wall'. 'A method of Analysis for infilled frames'. A Richards. 42-48. Moscow (CB3-W85). "Wood shear panels bonded with flexible adhesives'. Plate wall cladding. Proceedings. p. No. Ghazili. Mar. 31-48. ASCE. Predicted and observed vibration of high-rise buildings and related human sensitivity during typhoon. and A. Part 2. Page. January 1989. 60. No. p. A. A. Tall Buildings: 2000 and Beyond. section 10. 467-474. Proceedings of the 7th international brick masonry conference. 653-665. Proceedings of the Institute of Structural Engineers. p. Seminar/Workshop on serviceability limit states for steel buildings. 153-162. Stahlbauten. IABSE Working commission Π.S. p.W. Fourth World Congress. (5) W. March 1990. P· 131-149.H. 'Dynamic Response of Multistory Brick Buildings'. Journal of the Structural Division. Pennsylvania. 'Modelling Laterally Loaded Light-Frame Buildings'. Journal of the Structural Division. Sinha and A. 18-25. MacDonald. Proceedings. 3. Smith and C.C. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics. Araya and B. Gaiotti. State Committee of the USSR for Construction. 1960. p. Arndt. Chandra. 1972. p. (3) SIA 161. Institute of Civil Engineers. 170 . On the interaction between masonry filler walls and enclosing frame when loaded in the plain of the walls. 31-48.

ASCE. 1974. June 1990. 59. Uchida. Green.J. Kawamura. Seminar/Workshop on serviceability limit states for steel buildings. On the limitation of deflection of sway-frames. November 1986. Joseph. 341-346. Steel Construction'.T. Vervormingseisen voor bouwconstructies. Wood.1-12. 1986. September 1974. Parts 1. E.A..S. July 1978.H.3. Woolcock and S. McCutcheon. Vol. Tuomi and W. Tuomi and W. October 1984. Kobakhidze. 3. Forest Products Laboratory. 5) RX. (5) RX. Ellingwood. California. (2) RJL Wood and E. 104. Delft. Tawressey. Kitipornchai. 16- 17. Computers and Structures. Thomas. 31 (Feb. 'Serviceability limit states: Wind induced vibrations'. 2424-2438. p. No. Stark and S.H.2. Vibration offloor beams due to walking occu pants. p. No. 9. 35-46. IABSE colloquium on thin-walled metal structures. 1975.G.H. Tseitlin. Wood. 'Plasticity. Gutman. 6) R. Testing of a Full-Scale House under Simulated Snow loads and Wind Loads. Tschemmeniegg. Vol. p.(3) Steel Construction Today.O. A. Department of Agriculture. Structural Engineer. 1988. Vol. T. ST7. 2 and 3'. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. (2) N. IPXew and LJVl. (2) M. p. No. 381-411. Strand and M. Research Paper FPL 234. Study on measured data. 4. Advisory Desk. Wood. Habibullah. 'A graphical method of predicting sideways in the design of multistorey buildings'.A. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers. Journal of the Structural Division. 'Static and dynamic full-scale tests on a portal structure'. No. Vol. Zoetermeer SG-CUR Report No. 295-302. Neustroev and M. 353-372. Vol. 1989. p. 31-52. Composite action and collapse design of unreinforced shear wall panels in frames'. 'Collapse of Eight-Storey RC Building During 1985 Chile Earthquake'. The dynamic stiffness of interstorey floors (CIB- W85). Wilson and A. 2. 1131-1140. Part 2 No. No. In. ASCE. 'Deflection limits for portal fiâmes. Vol. Tallin and B. 1989. Berkeley. U. The Structrual Engineer. p. p. Roberts.52. Fifth North American Masonry Conference. (2) F. 1417-1424. p. (2) E. (5) J. Vol. Pirner. 20. Development of thin wall cladding to reduce drift in high-rise buildings. Factors of safety for thin stone in building curtain walls..G. p. 171 . 1989. 'Racking Strength of Light-Frame Nailed Walls'. SAP90 Finite Element Analysis Progra. 45-52. IABSE Working commission Π. 5. Part 2. 600-619. 235-244. April 1. Journal of Structural Engineering. September 1978. Kirihara. Seminar/Workshop on service ability limit states for steel buildings.). No. (2) S. Tomasetti. R. April 1. July 1991. (2. (2) SX. 10. A. ASCE. (2. Steelbuilding Association (SG). Vol. June 1978. 117. The Steel Construction Institute (SCI). p. Journal of the Structural Division. Journal of the Australian Institute of Steel Construction. A. 65. p. (6) F. (2) R. McCutcheon. Zurich. 'The strenght of brickwork'. p. Zurich. 56b.J. 1953.I. Aoyagi and H. February 1991. The Structural Engineer. M. June 1975. p. IABSE Working commission Π. Madison Wise. 110 No. 'Efffective lengths of columns in multi-storey buildings. RX. 239-246. Rotterdami and the Concrete Association (CUR). Stokholm. p. 203-206.

American Institute of Steel Construction.C. Seminar/Workshop on serviceability limit states for steel buildings. Somes. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. Zurich. Beam design in PR Breced Frames. Design guide on the Vibration of Floors. Washington D. Wyatt. 1145-1152.T. 1989. Washington D. Yancey and NF. Melbourne Australia. G. Full Scale Test on a Two-Story House Subjected to Lateral Load (Building Science Series 44). Predicted and observed vibration of high-rise buildings and related human sensitivity during typhoon. T. 26-1/26-26. Yokel. Woolcock and S. 1991. Kitipornchai. CW. Yoshida and K. Proposal for masonry design in common action with concrete and reinforcement. 1987. SQ publication 076. Sato. F. (5) F. p. The Steel Construction Institute.A. Structural Tests of a Wood Framed Housing Module. p. 515-532. Ascot. Zandonini and P. Zanon.26-27. 102. p.C. Vol.Y. February 1985. 172 . C Zeiger. 1973. March 1973.Y. (6) R. IABSE Working commission Π. ASCE. National Bureau of Standards. report NBSIR 73-121. St3. March 1976. Proceedings of the 7th international brick masonry conference. S. No. p.G. 'Survey of Deflection Limits for Portal Frames in Australia'. Journal of the Structural Division. April 1.. Hsi and NJ\ Somes. FattaL 'Failure Hypothesis for Masonry Shear Walls'. National Bureau of Standards. Yokel and S. 1989. (2) M. Third Quarter.

small and medium-sized enterprises.lu/ The CORDIS News database can be accessed through the WWW. research organisations or universities . This service provides information on CORDIS and the CORDIS databases. o CORDIS The Community Research and Development Information Service Your European R&D Information Source CORDIS represents a central source of information crucial for any organisation .be it industry. A partner search facility allows users to register their own details on the database as well as search for potential partners.cordis.lu/ .wishing to participate in the exploitation of research results.nine in total . German and French version) . which can be downloaded (including the above mentioned Watch-CORDIS) and the possibility of downloading full text documents including the work programmes and information packages for all the research programmes in the Fourth Framework and calls for proposals.Contacts CORDIS on World Wide Web The CORDIS service was extended in September 1994 to include the CORDIS World Wide Web (WWW) server on hitemet. The databases are also available on a CD-ROM. The CORDIS WWW service can be accessed on the Internet using browser software (e.cordis. Other databases cover Commission documents. The databases cover research programmes and projects from their preparatory stages through to their execution and final publication of results. Watch-CORDIS. By becoming a user of CORDIS you have the possibility to: Identify opportunities to manufacture and market new products Identify partnerships for research and development Identify major players in research projects Review research completed and in progress in areas of your interest The databases . Netscape) and the address is: htip://www. CORDIS makes information available to the public through a collection of databases.Programmes .Publications - Acronyms .P. Contact details for further Information If you would like further information on the CORDIS services. contact infoimation and relevant publications as well as acronyms and abbreviations. a Windows-based interface.g. various software products. events.Projects .are accessible on-line free of charge. is available on request.lu WWW: http://www. please contact the CORDIS Help Desk: CORDIS Customer Service Telephone: +352-401162-240 B. A daily news service provides up-to-date information on EU research activities including calls for proposals. The current databases are: News (English. As a user-friendly aid for on-line searching. participate in EU funded science and technology programmes and/or seek partnerships. publications and tenders as well as progress and results of research and development programmes.Results - Partners . publications and products.Comdocuments . 2373 Fax: +352-401162-248 L-1023 Luxembourg E-mail: helpdesk@cordis.

.

Bijl. partitions and connections between cladding.0 χ 29. F. Two testing techniques were used: counterbalanced rotating masses and impulse loading using a hammer blow. deformation types and limits. partitions and the structural steel frame). ft Zandonini.7 cm Technical steel research series ISBN 92-828-0167-5 Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: ECU 30 This report contains state-of-the art reviews of present serviceability design methods for steel-framed buildings. Two full-scale steel-framed buildings were tested. This involved an investigation of serviceability load levels and combinations. Bijaard. . uterature reviews were also made of thé in-plane stiffness and limits to serviceability of non-structural components (cladding. Previous general studies in the area of serviceability were reviewed. Both investigations concluded that structural response at service load levels is dominated by the behaviour of non-structural components. D. Nethercot Luxembourg: Office for Officiai Publications of the European Communities 1 997 1 72 pp. details and results of full-scale dynamic testing of steel-framed structures and presents investigations of new serviceability modelling methods. 21 . The objective of these tests was to use dynamic techniques to observe the real in-service lateral stiffness of steel-framed structures. State-of-the art reviews were performed to investigate the present status of serviceable design as reflected in code requirements around the world.European Commission EUR 15819 Properties and service performance Serviceability deflections and displacements in steel-framed structures C.

.

schultz. rue Raiffeisen StampfenbachstraBe 85 17. (27-1 1)883 37 37 URL: www.leimbacher@ecs. Ltd Breite StraUe 78-80 Fax (43-1) 53 161 339 E-mail: euroinfo@maiI.si bureau de vente de votre choix 12/96* .austria. (31-70)378 98 80 CY-1 509 Nicosia AUSTRALIA J. (385-1)43 03 92 E-mail: query@beman. (41-1)365 53 15 61 130 Tel Aviv Tél. Fax (356) 67 67 99 Fax (351-1)353 02 94/384 01 32 41. (352) 499 88 88 CZ-113 57Praha1 Tel. (20-2) 39 39 732 Fax (30-1) 323 98 21 E-mail: elebooks@netor.se HR-1 0000 Zagreb FRANCE URL: www.Ca/~renouf Miller Distributors Ltd GREECE/ Imprensa NaclonahCasa da Moeda.sì your choice / Veuillez vous adresser au Ncosatf1.net. (1-613)74173 33 Tel. (32-2) 538 51 69 L-2339 Luxembourg Konviktská 5 Jerusalem Fax (32-2) 538 08 41 Tél. (30-1)3314180/1/2/3 POLSKA Cairo Distribuidora de Uvros Bertrand Ld. rue Desaix ROMANIA MEXICO F-75727 Paris Cedex 15 The Stationery Office Ltd (Agency Section) Euromedia Mundl-Prensa Mexico.' Tel. (81-3)3234 69 21 Akateeminen Kirjakauppa / Fax (81-3) 3234 69 15 Fax (34-1) 575 39 98 DQnya Infotel A. (48-2)2612 01 PSWapan Mundi Prensa Libros.sltk.osec.d.fi BALGARUA 5th Floor Export House. (52-5) 553 56 58/60 URL: www.fi/aka/index. Shimon Hatarssi Street Leuvenseweg 40-42 L-2411 Luxembourg CH-8035 Zürich PO Box 13056 B-1 000 Bruxelles/Brussel Tél. 384 1715 (Suscripciones) URL: booknetcultnet.EU.htm K1 B 3W8 Ottawa.nis.infonet.ch E-mail: royii@netvision. ANDERE LANDER/OTHER COUNTRIES/ NIC Info A/S Dunajska cesta 5 1-50125 Firenze AUTRES PAYS Tel. Mapo Ku Tel.S. (359-2) 80 46 41 Mundi Prensa Barcelona BTJAB Fax (359-2) 80 45 41 Conseil de Cent. 391 Traktorvägen 1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA E-08009 Barcelona PO Box 200 HRVATSKA Tei. (34-1 ) 538 22 95 (Libros)/ E-mail: akatiIaus@stockmann. (358-9) 121 41 Fax 90-212 251 91 97 Safto E-28071 Madrid Fax (358-9) 121 44 35 Tel.stuba. pocztowa 1001 ESPAÑA Tel. (36-1)11 16 061/11 16 216 Tel. Eleftheroudakls SA Rua Marquês de Sá da Bandeira.nl Fax ¡357-2) 361 044 Hunter Publications Herstedvang 10-12 URL: www.(354)5515 650 E-mail: europ@tbb1 .ineLch Fax (972-3) 546 14 42 URL: www. 2 Tel.btj. (32-2) 295 26 39 SDU Servicecentrum Uitgevers 117312MOSCOW Fax (32-2) 735 08 60 Cyprus Chamber Of Commerce & Industry Tel.mpk.nstn. (47-22) 97 45 00 E-mail: belicd@gvestnik.osec.matav.tsai. (61-3)941753 61 Fax (45) 43 63 19 69 OSTERREICH MAGYARORSZÁG Fax (61 -3) 941 9 71 54 E-malI: schultz@schultz.es Akademiska Bokhandeln E-mail: psijapan@gol. (34-1) 431 33 99/431 32 22 Tel.(095)135 52 27 Christoffel Planíjnstràat 2 38.b|.NSTN. (49-221) 20 29-0 Fax (1-613) 741 54 39 Fax (49-221) 20 29 278 MALTA E-mail: renouf@fox.uk Fax (52-5) 514 67 99 Government Supplies Agency SLOVAKIA E-mail: 104164. (352) 40 10 20 Tel.dk URL: www. Fax (39-55) 64 12 57 Boks 651 2 Etterstad Tel. (42-7) 53 18 364 1 F1 . E-mail: mundiprensa@tsai. H.O. (386)61 133 03 54 Bitte wenden Sie sich an ein Büro Ihrer E-mail: licosa@ftbcc. Sherif Street GR-105 64 Athens Tel. International Rue de Louvain 40-42/ 5.psi-japan.es/mprensa TR-80050 Tünel-Istanbul Norra esplanaden 39 PL/PB128 Tei. E-mail: cy1691_eic_cypros@vans. Grivas Digenis Ave Fax (095) 135 52 27 Postbus 20014 Mail orders: DANMARK ' 2500 EA 's-Gravenhage PO Box 1455 Tei. 1 6 A LQA 05 Malta EGYPT P-1050 Lisboa Codex Tel. 4 A Ars Polona Fax (20-2) 39 39 732 Apartado 60037 Krakowskie Przedmiescie 7 P-2701 Amadora Codex JAPAN Skr. Venta · Salg · Verkauf · Πωλήσεις · Sales · Vente · Vendita · Verkoop · Venda · Myynti · Försäljning BELGIQUE/BELGIE GRAND-DUCHE DE LUXEMBOURG SCHWEIZ-SUISSE/SVIZZERA ISRAEL Moniteur beige/Belgisch Staatsblad Messageries du livre Sari OSEC R. (42-2) 24 22 94 33 Fax (972-2) 27 12 19 E-mail: mpk@pt.gvesmik. Schultz Information A/S Fax (31-70) 378 97 83 Tel.23compuserve.il Jean De Lannoy Abonnements: Sub-agent for the Palestinian Authority: Avenue du Ro! 202/ CESKA REPUBLIKA Koningslaan 202 Messageries Paul Kraus Index Information Services MS CR prodejna B-1060 Bruxelles/Brussel 1 1 .gr Rua das Terras dos Vales. Chiyoda-ku E-28001 Madrid TURKIYE Tokyo 102 Tei. (353-1) 661 31 11 Bokabud Larusar Blondel SLO-81223 Bratislava 1 Kyowa Book Company Fax (353-1) 475 27 60 Skőiavördustig. G-ral Berthelot Nr 41 Rio Panuco.de. Phyung Hwa Bldg IS-101 Reykjavik Fax (42-7) 53 18 364 41 1-2 Hap Jeong Dong. (46-46) 18 00 00 Mediatrade Ltd 461 1 -F Assembly Drive Fax (46-46) 18 01 25 MD20706 Lanham Pavia Hatzal Tel.hu 1 294 Algoma Road Postfach 10 05 34 E-mail: ausliefeaing@manz.com UNITED KINGDOM Service des publications des CE 26.htm Fax (47-22) 97 45 45 URL: www.kr.cz URL: www.hu/index. (33-1)40 58 77 01/31 Fax (33-1) 40 58 77 00 51 . 37 SUOMI/FINLAND 7-1 Sanbancho. (90-212)2519196 Boletín Oficial del Estado (90-312 427 0210 SOUTH AFRICA FIN-00101 Helsinki/Helsingfors Trafalgar.nl. (972-3) 546 14 23 Fax(32-2)5110184 E-mail: mdl@pt.co.lannoy@infoboard.lu E-mail: urs.com PO Box 404 DK-2620 Albertslund 3167 Abbotsford. (972-2) 27 16 34 E-mail: jean.c¡Iea.cz RUSSIA Rue de la Loi 244/ Wetstraat 244 NEDERLAND CCEC B-1 040 Bruxelles/Brussel CYPRUS 60-letiya Oktyabrya Av.net:81/manz Tel. Bid Vitosha Tel.sk 121-220 Seoul ITALIA Fax (354) 55 25 560 Tél. SA Fax (48-2) 26 62 40 Asahi Sanbancho Plaza #206 Castellò. (40-1) 210 44 01/614 06 64 ME-06500 México DF RELAND Fax (44-171) 873 8463 Fax (40-1) 210 44 0Ί/312 96 46 Tel. (32-2) 552 22 11 Fax (352) 490 661 Fax (41-1) 365 54 11 Tel. No: 469 URL: www.¡W¡rtua!_Ubrary/biWioWetrina/ Tel. 9 Tél. NORGE Gospodarskl Vestntk Via Duca di Calabria.(356)66 44 88 International Bookstore Tel. (34-3) 488 34 92 Bernan Associates S-22100 Lund Fax 34-3 487 76 59 Tel.C. Victoria Tlf . SA de CV Tél.und Unlversltlts· CANADA buchhandlung Gmbh Europa Ház Margitsziget DEUTSCHLAND Siebenbrunnengasse 21 PO Box 475 Uniquement abonnements/ Postfach 1 H-1396 Budapest 62 Subscriptions only: Bundesanzeiger Verlag A-1 050 Wien Tel. (82-2) 322 6780/1 SLOVENIA Fax (82-2) 322 6782 Licosa SpA E-mail: kyowa2@ktnet.boe.lu Fax (42-2) 24 22 94 33 Ubrakie europeen ne/Europeee Boekhandel URL: www.mailnet. (351-1) 353 03 99 The Middle East Observer Panepistimiou 17. EP Malta International Airport PO Box 25 G.es SVERIGE BG-1000 Sofia Fax (27-1 1)883 65 69 Tel. (351 -1 ) 495 90 50/495 87 87 PL-00-950 Warszawa Fax (351-1 496 02 55 Tel. (44-171) 873 9090 Tel. Nine Elms Lane Str.com Publications Section ICELAND Slovenske Technicka Knlznlca 4-5 Harcourt Road RÉPUBLIQUE DE CORÉE Dublin 2 Nàmestie slobody 1 9 Tel. 141 London SW8 5DR RO-70749 Bucuresti Delegación Cuauhtemoc Tel.beman. (357-2) 44 95 00/46 23 12 E-mail: sdu@sdu.it N-0606 Oslo Fax (386) 61 133 91 28 Wahl / Please contact the sales office of URL: tó382. (43-1)53 161334/340 Fax (36-1) 302 50 35 Renouf Publishing Co. 27-29 Tel. (45) 43 63 23 00 Tel.se/media'eu Fax (800) 865 3450 (toll free fax) Tel.be Fax (352) 499 888 444 Tel.com Pohjoisesplanadi 39/ Istiklâl Cad.sdu.co. (39-55)64 5415 0stenjoveien18 Sl-1 000 Ljubljana .htm CNR Maude & West Streets Fax (34-1) 538 23 49 (Libros)/ Europress-Euromedla Ltd PO Box 782 706 384 17 14 (Suscripciones) 2146Sandton 59.com Journal officiel Fax (385-1) 44 40 59 URL: www.com URL: www. 1/1 Casella postale 552 Zalozniska skupina d. (301) 459 2255 (toll free telephone) E-mail: bUo@mail.ca PORTUGAL URL: fox.Y. Ontario D-50667 Köln URL: www.at URL: www.co.lu E-mail: nkposp@dec.dk Euro Info Service Manz'sche Verlags.the-stationery-office.nis.euroinfo. rue Christophe Plantin PO Box 19502 Tél.

OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES =. OP *. published every two months. the Community Research and>Development Information Service. o o For subscription (1 year: ECU 65) please write to the address below.= -*· 9 789282"801673 > * * * L-2985 Luxembourg . NOTICE TO THE READER All scientific and technical reports published by the European Commission are announced in the periodical 'euro abstracts'. and in the R&TD publications database of CORDIS. OD CO m 2 Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: ECU 30 ISBN =l_-fl£_-D__7-5 * OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS *__&_.