0 views

Uploaded by khaledmegahed

rrr

rrr

© All Rights Reserved

- Dynamics Lecture_Part 2-Mshafik
- Vibration Analysis for Gears
- aectp-400-3
- Pile Group Stiffness for Seismic Soil-Structure Interaction
- ALTAIR Info-Tag Strukturmechanik 2015-3-24
- Ch8notes PDF
- Case Study1
- Introduction to Time Wave Form Analysis
- ngb
- Experimental Dynamic Analysis of Rotating Shaft Subjects to a slant crack.pdf
- Vibratingfeeder 150211110459 Conversion Gate01
- 2014 - Montazer - Damage Detection.pdf
- Dynamics and Vibrations_ Notes_ Free Undamped Vibrations
- Terratek Integrity Monitoring of Structures
- Rtiwari Rd Book 11a
- 02-xbelat01.pdf
- Synopsis suraj.docx
- elmarsafawi1992
- 0814040013 - Ayu Ratnasari.docx
- Micro Slip

You are on page 1of 11

1997

Co) 1997 Elsevier Science Lid

All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain

PII: S0141-0296(96)00143-5 0141 0296/97 $17.00 + 0.00

ELSEVIER

semirigid flames

E. M. Lui

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Syracuse UniversiO:, 220 Hinds Hall,

Syracuse, NY 13244, USA

A. Lopes

G~nie Civil POle Construction, Ecole Nationale Sup~rieure des Arts et Industries de

Strasbourg, Strasbourg-Cedex, France

(Received August 1996; revised version accepted October 1996)

puter model. The flexibilities of the connections are modelled by

rotational springs with bilinear moment-rotation relationships.

Geometrical nonlinearities in the form of member ( P - 8) and frame

( P - A) instabilities are incorporated in the model through the use

of stability functions in the formulation of the frame stiffness

matrix. Material nonlinearity in the form of column inelasticity is

accounted for by the use of the tangent modulus concept in the

formulation of the column stiffness relationship. Response charac-

teristics of semirigid frames under free vibration, forced vibration

and earthquake excitation are studied. Response spectra are gener-

ated for frames subjected to forced vibrations and earthquake exci-

tations. The presence of connection flexibility and P-delta effects

tends to reduce frame stiffness, and hence increase the frames'

natural periods of vibration. Semirigidity and P-delta effects also

affect the magnitude of base shear and the amount of energy dissi-

pation of semirigid frames. The extent of these effects is frequency

dependent. Based on the results of this study, implications for

semirigid frame design will be discussed. 1997 Elsevier

Science Ltd.

earthquake response spectra

joints were considered semirigid.

Semirigid frames are frames for which the beam-to-column These classification systems were developed based on

joints are neither pinned nor rigid. In reality all frames are extensive research conducted during the past six decades

semirigid in nature because truly pinned or perfectly rigid on semirigid joints and their effects on column and frame

joints do not exist. However, for design purposes if the responses. The essence of these studies has been summar-

amount of moment that can be transmitted by the joint is ized in various books and monographs 3 7, and will not be

negligibly small, the joint can be idealized as pinned, and repeated here. However, it should be noted that despite the

if the moment that can be transmitted is sufficiently large, availability of this volume of information in the literature,

the joint can be idealized as rigid. For practical purposes, most of the studies on semirigid joints and their effects

two classification systems have been proposed to demarcate on structural members and frames were based on static or

semirigid frames from rigid frames. The classification sys- quasistatic load conditions. While studies of the response

tem by Bjorhovde e t a l . t is based primarily on member of semirigid frames under dynamic loadings have gained

response whereas the classification system by Eurocode 32 momentum in recent years 8-H much remains to be done.

is based on overall frame response. Both systems classified The studies reported in References 8 - 1 4 are primarily con-

connections in terms of their stiffness and strength. Bound- cerned with the experimental investigation of semirigid

ar3; lines were established on the nondimensional connec- joint behaviour and time-history analyses of semirigid

644

Dynamic analysis and response of semirigid frames: E. M. Lui and A. Lopes 645

pa ~c nodal force vector, db= {d,, d2, d3, d4, ds, d6}r is the beam

matrix accounting for the present of the connections

given by ~5

F(O "-

zvA~ Nc A,

l,, 0 0

At,

0 0

L~, Lh /~ L~

EI~,

,< _ {s,;+ ,~} 4

L~, (2)

Ic,Ac Lc

Ah

0 0

sym

L~, L~,

s;

A D

I'/I [41 L i

~[

1

where

4 + 12Elbt

LbRC/

frames. The effect of forcing frequency on semirigid flame sii = (3)

behaviour expressed in terms of maximum displacement, ( 4EI"t( 4Elb t (Elbt24

base shear and energy dissipation has not been addressed 1 +LbRf] 1 +L,,RC]-\Lb] RfR c

in detail.

In this paper, the results of a numerical study of semi- (4 + 12El,,)

rigid frames under dynamic and earthquake excitations will L,,Rf /

be presented. The numerical analyses will be carried out * (4)

sjj=( 4El,, t ( 4El,, 1 (Elbt 2 4

using a simple portal semirigid flame in conjunction with l + Ld~/ 1 + L , 3 ; } - \ Lb/ R f R f

a bilinear hysteretic connection model and a fourth-order

Runge-Kutta integration scheme. The analysis results in 2

the form of time-history and frequency response graphs will

be presented to illustrate the influence of connection flexi-

s~=( 4E.lht ( 4Elh t (Elhl24 (5)

bility and geometrical nonlinearity (P-delta effects) on the

1 +Ld~f] 1 +L,,RC]-\Lh] RfR c

response of frames with semirigid joints. Based on these

results, ramifications for semirigid flame design will be in which R~ and R~ are the instantaneous stiffness of the

addressed. connections at the B and C ends of the beam, respectively

(see Section 3).

Using a beam-column formulation, the stiffness matrix

2. Semirigid frame model relating the column nodal forces rc = {rj, r2, r3, r4, rs, r6}T

The semirigid frame model used for the present study is and the column nodal displacements d, ={dl, d2, d3, d4, d5,

d6} T shown in Figure 3 is given by 15

shown in Figure 1. It consists of a beam with moment of

inertia Is, and length Lh, and two columns with moments of

inertia I, and lengths L,., joined at B and C by two semirigid

connections. The connections are modelled as rotational

springs at the beam ends. Thus, only the flexural defor-

mation (moment-rotational) mode of the connections will

be incorporated in the present study. The axial and shear r4, d 4

~ ds

r6 , d 6

i

deformation modes of the connections are ignored.

The frame is subjected to two types of loadings: a time-

dependent lateral load F(t) and two time-independent grav-

ity concentrated column loads P~ and pc. Frame analyses

under the combined effect of gravity and lateral loads are

carried "out using the stiffness matrix method. The beam It=constant Lc

stiffness relationship is given by

rb = k Jib ( 1)

where (see Figure 2), rl, = {r~, r2, r3, r4, rs, r6}r is the beam

r2,d2 rs,d5

rI ,dl

R~ Rkc ~_~

k r , d3

la ''a Lb ~ rs'd'

r2 , d 2

Figure2 Beam model Figure3 Column model

646 Dynamic analysis and response of semirigid frames: E. M. Lui and A. Lopes

o

always exceed the largest moment developed in the system.

Ac A( Assembling equations (2) and (6), one obtains a 6 x 6

0 0 - 0 stiffness matrix for the frame of Figure 1. However, to

lc L facilitate the use of spectral analysis which is commonly

6 employed in earthquake resistance design, this six-degrees-

TEL. 4~b3 L, 62 0 264

of-freedom system will be reduced to a single-degree-of-

k,=L, '

12 6 freedom system. The reduction is shown schematically in

L~ 6, 0 L, Figure 4, and mathematically in the following.

By assuming that the axial deformation in the member

A~

sym. 0 is small compared to the bending deformation, one can

1, eliminate degrees of freedom A t~, 6R and 6 c from the frame

of Figure 4a. The remaining three degrees of freedom for

(6) the frame of Figure 4b are the joint rotations at B and C

(0 ~, 0c) and the storey lateral deflection (&). The 3 x 3

where ~b~, (~2, (~3 and (~4 are stability stiffness functions stiffness matrix for the frame of Figure 4b has the form

which account for the P-delta effects in the columns. They

are given by 6B 6C

(",/fi-L~/'rEl,).s sin ~ / ~ , ~ 0C

(7)

12 (2 - 2cos 4PL~/~'EI, - " J ~ sin ~ / ' r E l , )

&B ~C , &c

(~/~/"rEl,) 2 ( 1 - cos ~/PL~/rEI,)

d92 = (8)

6 (2 - 2cos ",/~/7"EI,- ~ sin ~ )

(~/PL~I'rEI,) (sin ~L~/'rE1, "~PL~I'rEI, cos ~PL~/rEI,)

(9)

4 (2 - 2cos ~/~/'rEl, - ~IPL~/'rEI, sin ~/-'~,,2/'rEl,)

( ~fi-L~/'rEl, ) ( ~/P~,~/'rEI - sin ",[PL~/"rEI,)

q~4= - (10)

2 (2 2cos~/PL~/'rEI, ~/PL~/"rEI, sin ~ l ~ )

A fj ~

f/1 "T

(~IP-L~/"rEI,)3 sinhq'PL~/'rEI,)

11)

(a)

12 (2 - 2cosh 4 ~ +~ sinh ~/PL{/TEI, )

(qPL~/'rEI,~) ~ (cosh ~ ' ~ - 1)

12) ~,~0 C

6 (2 2cosh4 ~ + ~/'~ sinh "~"PL~/zEI,.)

~93 =

(~/~)

--

4 (2 2cosh~ / ~

(4-fiL~/'rEl, cosh ~ ' ~ ,

+ ~/~

- sinh~'PL~/zEI,.)

sinh ~l~/rEl,)

(13) el-

(qPL~/rEI,) (sinh4 ~ - 4-fi'L~/rEl,)

(14)

The parameter ~- in equations ( 6 ) - ( 1 4 ) is a factor which

accounts for column inelasticity. It is defined as the ratio

of the tangent modulus E, to the elastic modulus E of the

column. In the present study, this modular ratio is approxi- T, -j I

P

1 , if p,.--< 0.39

T (~5)

A

-2.724 P~I In , if P,. > 0.39

where p,. is the yield load of the column given by the pro-

duct of the column cross-sectional area Ac and the material

yield stress ~y. Equation (15) was obtained by dividing the

inelastic column strength equation, which was based on the

tangent modulus concept, by the elastic column strength

equation of the current AISC LRFD Specification ~6. In an

incremental analysis, the term t E l , represents the inelastic I

lJ/ "i fJ

flexural rigidity of the column that is available to resist (c)

moment. In the present analysis, formation of plastic hinge

in the column is precluded. The columns used in all the Figure 4 Degrees-of-freedom reduction

Dynamic analysis and response of semirigid frames: E. M. Lui and A. Lopes 647

ing force term giving

,L,F(r) ,

where m and c are the (lumped) system mass and system

damping coefficient, respectively. A dot () above the dis-

placement variable u represents a time derivative of the

(,6) variable. Unlike m and c, which are assumed to be constants

in equation (22), k is a variable. Since the geometrical non-

linear (P-delta) effect as well as the effects of connection

flexibility and column inelasticity are accounted for in k,

this system stiffness needs to be updated constantly to keep

track of the nonlinearities that develop throughout the

course of the analysis.

3. Connection model

A Although connections can deform in a variety of modes

L (e.g., axial, shear, flexural and torsional), only the flexural

KU

mode will be considered in the present study. The cyclic

where connection moment-rotation relationship is assumed to be

bilinear and follows the kinematic hardening rule as shown

K,, = - ( PAB+ PC) L,. + 2 (17) in Figure 5. To employ this simplified connection model

for dynamic analysis, only three parameters: the elastic con-

(44% + 2W)

1 nection stiffness R,,, the strain hardening connection stiff-

ness R, and the bound slope moment Mbourld are required.

At initial loading, the stiffness of the connection is R,,. The

superscripts AB and CD refer to column AB and col- stiffness changes from Rkrto R,, when the moment in the

umn CD, respectively. connection reaches the moment envelope as depicted by the

To reduce the number of degrees of freedom from three dotted lines in the figure. The moment envelope has a slope

for the frame of Figure 4b to one for the frame of Figure of R,, and it intersects the ordinate at the bound slope

4c, the rotational degrees of freedom eR and tF are to be moment Hound. Upon loading and reloading, the connec-

condensed out of the system stiffness relationship. To per- tion stiffness reverts to R,, (i.e., elastic shakedown) unless

form the condensation, equation (16) is partitioned as the moment in the connection due to unloading and

shown and expressed symbolically as reloading equals or exceeds that defined by the moment

envelope, in which case the connection stiffness will be R,.

Thus, the connection stiffness is equal to Rkrif the connec-

tion moment is within the moment envelope, and it is equal

to R, if the connection moment exceeds that of the

(18) moment envelope.

Moment

backsubstituting the result into the second equation, the

one-degree-of-freedom system stiffness relationship can

now be written as

ku =f (19)

the ground), k and f are the system stiffness and forcing

function, respectively. They are given by

K

k =_AA_~- K,AK~&A

(20)

Lf

f=:=F(t) (21)

and by ignoring the rotational mass moment of inertia and

damping due to rotational effect, the equation of motion

for the system can be obtained by augmenting the left-hand Figure 5 Connection model

648 Dynamic analysis and response of semirigid frames: E. M. Lui and A. Lopes

The values of Rk~, Rkp and Mho,,,j for the connections are - - - Single Web Angle ]

...... Top and Seat Angle[

obtained by curve-fitting of available connection m o m e n t - - - Rigid l

rotation test data from the Kishi and Chen t7 databank. The

results are summarized in Table 1.

geometry and member sizes, the equation of motion r, iilq ": ~..c,,:)

is formulated in an incremental form as

acceleration, velocity, displacement and excitation force Figure 6 Free vibration responses (~" = constant - 0.05)

over a time increment of At. A computer program utilizing

the fourth-order Runge-Kutta integration scheme t8 was Table2 M e m b e r and material properties

developed to solve equation (23) numerically. The R u n g e -

Kutta method was used because of its high degree of accu- Member E (% L / A

racy. The errors in phase shift and numerical damping are (MPa) (MPa) (m) (m 4) (m 2)

practically negligible. The analyses were carried out using

a predetermined time step chosen so that it would always Beam 2 x 10s 248 6.1 5 . 5 4 x 10 4 0.012

Column 2 x 105 248 4.6 1.13 x 10 4 0.0093

be less than 10% of the initial natural period of the system

being analysed. To account for the connection flexibility

effect as well as the geometrical and material nonlinear

effects present in the frame, the system stiffness k in equ- columns are W I 0 x 49 sections. The member and material

ation (23) was updated at every time step during the analy- properties are given in Table 2. No gravity loads are applied

sis. If the column axial forces are small (IPL~/~'EI,[ < 1), on the columns (i.e., pR = pc,= 0) and so no P-delta effect

Taylor series expressions are used for the 4~ functions given is included, but damping is taken as 5% of critical. The

in equations ( 7 ) - ( 1 4 ) in formulating k to avoid numerical initial conditions used are u, = 2.54 cm and (to = 50.8 cm/s.

difficulty ~5. Once the incremental quantities are solved from As can be seen readily from the figure, connection flexi-

equation (23), they are cumulated to obtain the total bility increases the natural period of vibration of the frame.

response of the system at the end of each time step. In what Although the logarithmic decrements are the same for all

follows, the analysis results generated using different types three frames, the time required for the vibration to subside

of connections and loadings will be presented. is longer for the more flexible frames. The natural period

increases as the rigidity of the connection decreases

because flame stiffness is reduced by the presence of flex-

5. Analysis results: free vibration responses ible connections. The time required for the vibratory motion

A primary objective of the present study is to investigate to abate is longer for the more flexible frames because for

how connection flexibility and geometrical nonlinearity (P- a given damping ratio, '2 = clc, r = cl2m~o,,, the amount of

delta effects) influence the dynamic response of semirigid damping, c, is lower for the more flexible frames due to

frames. Figure 6 shows the free vibration displacement their lower natural frequencies ~o,. If the same damping

responses of the frame shown in Figure 1 with three differ- (rather than the same damping ratio) is used for all three

ent types of connections: single web angle, top and seat frames, it can be seen from Figure 7 that the number of

angle, and rigid. The beam is a W21 x 62 section and the cycles required for the vibration to cease is less lbr the

more flexible frames.

Table 1 Connection parameters

--- SingleWebAngle ]

Connection Rko Rkp Mbo.nd

(kN-m/rad) (kN-m/rad) (kN-m) 0.60-

0.40 -

Single web angle 1700 113 11.3

~

,I :t

Double web angle 3390 170 34.0 ~" 020

Top and seat 15800 1360 79.1 0. 1.20 1.40 1.60 1 88

angle with w e b

cleats 41.60

plate

Rigid ~ ~ -

Figure 7 Free vibration responses (c = constant = 6.72 kN.s/m)

Dynamic analysis and response o f semirigid frames: E. M. Lui and A. Lopes 649

Table 3 C o m p a r i s o n o f c h a n g e in n a t u r a l p e r i o d s , Tn

0,0 ~

Frame C o l u m n load Natural % increase

o*o ~. iii p e r i o d (s) in 7-,

,: ~. ; .,'~

Semirigid 0 0.132 -

0.2 P/Pv 0.141 6.82

~ ~! ~ I; : ,~'" - 0.6 P/Pv 0.172 30.3

Rigid 0 0.084 -

0.2 P/Pv 0.086 2.38

" : ~ I .: r : V ~.': ',-' Tim* (s,c) 0.6 P/Pv 0.095 13.1

, ; , h ~;

the range of spectral periods in which the seismic coef-

ficient decreases with increasing period. Nevertheless, care

must be exercised in generalizing the beneficial effects of

Figure B Free v i b r a t i o n r e s p o n s e s o f a s e m i r i g i d f r a m e w i t h semirigidity. Because semirigid frames are more flexible,

d o u b l e w e b a n g l e c o n n e c t i o n s (~ = 0.05) they are more sensitive to the P-delta effect and may be

more susceptible to failure by dynamic instability. The

To investigate the effect of gravity load on the dynamic potential gain in member size reduction due to the use of

response of semirigid frames, axial forces equal to 0.2P~, smaller seismic design forces may be offset by the need to

and 0.6P~ are applied to the columns of the frame shown use larger member sizes to preclude instability failure under

in Figure 1, with member and material properties given in combined gravity and lateral loads.

Table 2. The connections used are double web angles. The

connection parameters are given in Table 1. The results of 6. Analysis results: forced vibration responses

the free vibration analyses using a damping ratio ~" = 0.05

are depicted in Figure 8. As can be seen, the presence of Forced vibration analyses allow us to gain insight into

gravity load increases the natural period of the frame. This semirigid frame performance in terms of their maximum

is the result of the P-delta effect which tends to decrease response characteristics, base shear attribute and energy

frame stiffness. The increase of natural period is more pro- dissipation capacity. The forcing function used in the

nounced as the magnitude of the gravity load increases. As present study is a harmonic loading given by

the load increases, the P-delta effect becomes more promi-

nent, In addition, as P increases beyond 0.39P~., column F( t ) = posincot = (0.2 mg )sincot (24)

inelasticity will set in according to equation (15), thereby

resulting in a further loss of frame stiffness when the mod- where m is the system mass, g is the acceleration due to

uli of the columns change from E to E,. gravity and w is the forcing frequency.

The influence of the P-delta effect is more pronounced Using the frame model shown in Figure 1 with the seven

for semirigid frames than for rigid frames. This can be seen connection types given in Table 1, time-history analyses

readily when one compares the semirigid frame responses were performed for different values of forcing frequency

shown in Figure 8 with the rigid frame responses shown co. Maximum response functions (displacement, velocity,

in Figure 9. The only difference between the frame used acceleration, base shear, energy, etc.) could then be

in Figure 8 and that used in Figure 9 is the connection. In obtained from each of the time-history analyses. A set of

Table 3, the natural periods of the frames are compared to maximum displacement response curves obtained for

demonstrate the degree to which gravity loads affect the P/p~. = 0 and ~" = 0.05 are plotted in Figure 10. The dis-

dynamic characteristics of the frames. placement response factor Rd used as the ordinate in the

From a design perspective, an increase in the frame's

1.00

0.80 t

! ~ llf ~ ~ l[ . . . . . . "r.,~s,...~k,,,~w.bc,,,,~,

2" I ViA/ Z /

Tirnl (sec)

q ) ~ i i i i i i

20 4o 6o ~ loAl 120 1~1 160 1~ 20o

Forcing Fmquen=y, m ( m ~ )

Figure9 Free v i b r a t i o n r e s p o n s e s o f a rigid f r a m e (~ = 0.05) Figure 10 Displacement response curves (P/Pv= 0, ,~ = 0.05)

650 Dynamic analysis and response of semirigid frames: E. M. Lui and A. Lopes

10

While the effect of gravity loads on system response is

r :,,I

9

!.

!: ::t more pronounced for semirigid frames as evidenced by the

8.

wider spread of the curves, the maximum responses at res-

onances do not seem to be too sensitive to values of P/Py.

7.

;i ill

For design purposes, in addition to obtaining information

on the maximum response characteristics of the frames, it

I .il

:.r

:

is of interest to have knowledge of the magnitude of base

! :| ;

t: i -/t :

shear generated and the amount of energy dissipated by the"

E 4 ; ,,'~ : frames. Maximum base shear curves for three frames using

i:; ~ " three different connection types with two different values

,./...~/ t. ~,,

of P/Py and ~"= 0.05 are shown in Figure 13. The maximum

2

,.,...~" ,., ...:,, base shear V,,,,~, normalized by the peak amplitude of the

1

harmonic forcing function p , = 0.2 mg, is plotted against

the forcing frequency to. The dependence of the maximum

O. base shear on to is again noted. Although Vm,, always

20 4(} 60 80 100 120 140

Fomln F r e q u e n c Y , {rad/tec) attains a peak value at resonance regardless of frame stiff-

ness and the value of P/Py, the maximum base shear gener-

Figure 11 D i s p l a c e m e n t r e s p o n s e c u r v e s o f a s e m i r i g i d f r a m e

w i t h single w e b a n g l e s (,; = 0.05)

ated by the dynamic load in a semirigid frame can be

smaller or larger than that generated in a rigid frame,

depending on the range of forcing frequency This obser-

figure is defined as the ratio of the maximum displacement vation on the frequency dependence characteristic of V,......

u.... experienced by the frame to the static displacement explains why contradictory remarks were made by Nader

us, = polk = 0.2 mglk of the frame. Two observations can and Astenah 9 who indicated that the magnitude of base

be obtained from the figure: firstly, Ra is frequency depen- shear would reduce as frame stiffness decreased and Siva-

dent. Ra for a semirigid frame can be smaller or larger than kumaran 8 who indicated to the contrary. If one refers to

that of a rigid frame, depending on the range of forcing Figure 13, it can be seen that V,,,x does reduce for the more

frequency to. For instance, if to is higher than 56 rad/s, Ra flexible frames in the high frequency range, but it increases

for the semirigid frame with single web angle connections in the low frequency range.

is less than that for the rigid frame. However, the reverse To investigate the effect of damping on the forced

is true if to is lower than 56 rad/s. Secondly, at resonance, vibration response of the frames, the displacement response

the maximum Ra as shown by the peak of each curve for curves and the maximum base shear curves are generated

a semirigid frame is only slightly higher than that for a for two frames using two different values of damping ratio

rigid frame (even though the maximum displacement u ..... ~'. The results are shown in Figures 14 and 15. As expected,

for the semirigid frame can be much higher because k is the increase in damping causes the responses to be muted.

smaller). Similar observations are noted when one plots the The amount of reduction in the responses seems to be a

velocity response factor Rv = [~m~J(pSkm) and the acceler- function of ff only, and appears neither to be affected by

ation response factor R, = iimoJ(polm ) for the frames as a connection flexibility nor by P-6 effects.

function of the forcing frequency w. In Figure 16 the amount of energy dissipated by the vis-

The maximum displacement response curves generated cous dampers of the three frames used in generating the

with the presence of gravity loads are shown in Figure 11 base shear curves of Figure 13 over a period of 2 s is plot-

for a semirigid frame with single web angle connections ted as a function of the forcing frequency to. The energy

and in Figure 12 for a corresponding rigid frame. The is calculated using the equation

dependency of the response on the forcing frequency is

apparent. Depending on the frequency of the applied force,

the response may be less or more severe for a given P/p,,. E= fce,du= fca=dt- ca=at (25)

/I!

9

9- .... si~= ~ ~ (p~po)

:: I' J

.... s~g~, ~ .~ (PtP,po.e)

8 :: !1:; r

8- Ii i . : I I --- Top and Seat Ai'tgle ( p / P ~ }

. !. j

I I t , . . . . . . Top and ,Seat Angle (P/Py~0.6)

' 7 : t I 1 Rigid (P/l~f'~,O)

7.

- - Rigk~(Pmy=o.s)

6-

!i ! I/ ~ ,i/~ :'I~ / i / t

!4

m

\ 1, 4- \

i ;v ,'Yl

3-

/

, ;...~,,

! ,,,,

,. , \,,, ~

2,

i J i i i i ~ , i

.......... : ~ ~

40 tl0 80 100 120 140 180 1~ 200 I

Forcing Frequency,e (tad/No) 20 40 60 80 100 120 160

Figure 12 D i s p l a c e m e n t r e s p o n s e c u r v e s o f a rigid f r a m e (~ =

0.05) Figure 13 B a s e s h e a r response curves (~ = 0 . 0 5 )

Dynamic analysis and response of semirigid frames: E. M. Lui and A. Lopes 651

t - - Rigid (PIP~,0. damm~g-5% o~c~lcal) amount of energy dissipated by the semirigid frames at res-

- - Rlgld {P/Pp0. dampmg-lO% ~~ ) onance increases with decreasing frame stiffness. This

'l -- - Single We~ Angle (P/Py=0.6. dampk~5% of dtCal)

increase in viscous energy dissipation is attributed to the

:! higher velocity /~ experienced by the more flexible frames

at resonance.

i:

7. Analysis results: earthquake responses

The earthquake used for the spectral analyses to be

presented in this section is the 1971 San Fernando earth-

quake in California. The quake lasted 41.73 s and measures

6.6 on the Richter scale. The ground accelerogram used is

the $74W component measured at the Pacoima Dam. The

1

peak acceleration Ugm~x, peak velocity/tg m~, and peak dis-

0

placement Ugmo~ were measured to be 1054.94 cm/s 2, -

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 20O 57.74 cm/s and -10.82 cm, respectively. Substituting AF =

Forcing Frequency,~ (nld/l~)

- mAUl, where AU~ is the incremental ground acceleration

Figure 14 Effect of damping on displacement response curves measured over a time step of At, into equation (23) and

performing a series of time-history analyses on a variety

r

of frames with varying member lengths, member sizes and

connection types, spectral response curves for maximum

displacements, maximum velocity, maximum acceleration,

maximum base shear and total energy dissipation can be

obtained. Some representative results are shown in Figures

17-21 for two values of P/Py (P/Py = 0 and P/Py = 0.6).

Because of the presence of nonlinearities, the stiffnesses of

the frames are not constants and so the natural periods T,,

change throughout the course of the analyses. The natural

periods used in the abscissas of the spectral graphs were

calculated based on the initial frame stiffnesses. Figures

17-19 show the response spectra for maximum displace-

ments, velocities and accelerations of the frames, nor-

malized by the respective measured peak displacement,

peak velocity and peak acceleration of the ground motion.

20 40 60 8O 100 120 140 160 IB0 2OO

Figure 20 shows the response spectrum for the maximum

Fon:lng Friqulncy, i (rid/tic) base shear, normalized by the peak ground excitation force

miig . . . . and Figure 21 show the response spectrum for the

Figure 15 Effect of damping o n base shear r e s p o n s e c u r v e s

energy dissipated by the frames for the entire duration of

0.7-

the quake. An interesting observation one can obtain from

these figures is that the response spectra for semirigid

' - - - S'mg~ Web ~ (Pmy,,o) frames with or without the presence of P-delta effect are

o.6 ~ .... ~r~ ~ A , ~ p~,y-o.s)

very similar to the response spectra for rigid frames with

i! - - - re, ..d s . ~ , ~ , p~po)

05 ! ,, , . ..... Topa,~ S ~ ~ (P~,-O.~)

or without the presence of the P-delta effect. The same

i; ~ Rigid(Pray-o)

I! ~ --R~I P/l~tIO.6) 2.5-

I II .;

0.4 .

: i I : iT

,z ! ii:i,t

i~ 0.3 . I : I I

2 - - Rigid (p/Py-0)

: ; i :,

0.2 : iI

I h I

: i+ :i J. !

.' :. I'

. 4{ I I i~ l.S. I i

o.1 ; I i'll',

"

i~,: : " ;

\ \

? .~ / .'" .~."

"~s ," " K " t \ , \ \

o. _.... _...... <

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

where c is the damping, ~ is the velocity and At is the

analysis time step. It should be mentioned that since a con-

stant damping ratio ~" = c/2mw,, = 0.05 is used for all the

frames, the amount of damping c is lower for the more 2 4 6 5 10

InlUal Period, T .

flexible frames because the natural frequencies ~o, are

smaller for these frames. Despite smaller damping, the Figure 17 Displacement r e s p o n s e s p e c t r a (,=r= 0.05)

652 Dynamic analysis and response o f semirigid frames: E. M. Lui and A. Lopes

t I!,1, / - - - Rigid (P/Py=0.6)

I .t.I

0.5 1

0 t ~ 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Initial Period, T. Initial Period, r .

...... Top & Seat Angle with Web Cleat= (P/Py=0) different frequency content, magnitude and duration was

2.5 .... Top & Seat Angle with Web Cleat= (P/Py=0.6) I used in the analyses v). This observation suggests that

- - Rigid (P/P~0) despite the presence of connection flexibility and P-delta

- - - - - - Rigid (P/Py=0.6 l

effects which unquestionably change the system character-

istics, one can still use the response spectrum method

developed for rigid frames to design semirigid frames pro-

vided that the natural periods of these semirigid frames can

i

:~" 1.5 be estimated correctly. In what follows, a simple equation

which enables a designer to estimate the natural periods of

semirigid frames shown in Figure 1 with or without P-delta

effect will be presented.

Consider a free body diagram of column AB shown in Fig-

ure 22, equilibrium of the column requires that

0 ' P

0 2 4 6 8 10

Figure 19 A c c e l e r a t i o n r e s p o n s e spectra (~" = 0.05)

from which the lateral column stiffness can be written as

V M+M,U P

kl'''''''~ - - (27)

...... Top & S e a t Angle ~ V~b Cleat= (P/tin/=0) A L,.A L,

2.5

i .... Top & Seat Angle wi~ Web Cleat= (P/Py=0.6)

- - Rigid (PfPy=0)

The column end moments M 2 and M(! can be expressed

in terms of the column end displacements by extracting the

i

'Jl

- - - - - Rigid (P/Py=0,6]

third and sixth equations from the column stiffness relation-

ship given in equation (6). Using the kinematic conditions

3

=="

02,. = d3 = 0 and A = d 4 - dl, one obtains

E 1.5

!

M,a+Mff 6rEl'A (24a2 ~)

- + &4 (28)

L, \L,

J"l

0.5

can be obtained by using the condition of joint equilibrium

at B. From Figure 23, it can be seen that joint equilibrium

requires that

2 4 6 8 M,(~ + M~ = 0 (29)

InlUat Period, T n

Ffgure 20 Base s h e a r r e s p o n s e spectra (~" = 0.05) Substituting the sixth equation from equation (6) for M,u

Dynamic analysis and response of semirigid frames: E. M. Lui and A. Lopes 653

(28), with 4,4 ~ 1 for small axial force, and then into equ-

ation (27), the lateral column stiffness can be expressed as

V B---

k~ateral ~ 1.kshear

1 lt, Lc 2 4

"r I,. Lh 1 + 6Elh

L,,R,] +

(32)

Lc

where k~he,~r = 12EIc/L 3 is the lateral column stiffness of a

conventional shear frame (i.e., a frame with very stiff

beams and rigid connections). The term in brackets is a

stiffness reduction factor to account for the effect of beam

and connection flexibilities and the term P/L,. is a stiffness

reduction factor to account for the effect of frame insta-

bility.

V 4 By following the same procedure, a similar expression

can be obtained for the lateral stiffness of column CD. The

'-JMg I lateral frame stiffness can thus be obtained by summing

equation (32) for all columns of the storey. Once the lateral

P frame stiffness is evaluated, the frame period can be calcu-

I_ A _l lated from the equation

i - i

T. = 2 7 " g ktfaer,,t (33)

4 in which initial frame periods (periods calculated based

on initial frame stiffnesses) obtained from computer analy-

ses of the frame with connection properties given in Table

1 and member and material properties given in Table 2 are

Figuro23 Free body diagram of joint B

compared to those calculated from equation (33) for P/Py

= 0, 0.3 and 0.6. Good correlations are observed. The slight

and making use of the third and sixth equations from equ-

underestimation of T,, by equation (33) is due to the

ation (2), one obtains after some rearrangements and sim-

assumption that 4)2 ~ 4)3 ~ 4)4 ~ 1. This error increases as

plifications

the column axial force P increases. However, even for the

case when P/Py is relatively high, the error is well within

-6+2rElc design limits and should not pose significant problems in

L~ design.

(30)

+ 4~3~EI,.

- -

L~. 9. Conclusions

+ L,,R~/- ~t~" A computer semirigid frame model was developed and used

to study the dynamic response of semirigid frames sub-

where MClMg is the ratio of the moments at the two ends jected to combined gravity and lateral loads. The model

of the boam. The above equation can be further simplified if incorporates connection flexibility, P-delta and column

we assume the connections have attained their shakedown inelasticity effects into the analyses. Connections were

stiffness so that R~ = Rk and that the beam bends in near modelled as springs with bilinear kinematic hardening hys-

double curvature so that M~/Mg -~ 1, and that the axial teretic characteristic. The P-delta effect was accounted for

force in the column is small enough so that q52 ~ 4,3 ~ i. by the use of stability functions in a beam-column formu-

Equation (30) can now be written as lation. Column inelasticity was incorporated through the

use of the tangent modulus concept. Dynamic analyses

-6TEIc were performed for free vibration, forced vibration and

earthquake excitation. Based on these analyses, the follow-

(31) ing conclusions can be drawn.

The effects of semirigidity, geometrical nonlinearity and

E!h 6 4rEL.

column inelasticity are to increase the natural period of

k + Lc vibration of the frame. This increase in frame period may

Lh 1 + L~J

be beneficial if the period falls within the range in the

654 Dynamic analysis and response of semirigid frames: E. M. Lui and A. Lopes

Table 4 Comparison of frame periods

(33) (33) (33)

Double web angle 0.132 0.132 0.146 0.143 0.182 0.174

Header plate 0.119 0.119 0.129 0.127 0.153 0.149

Top and seat angle 0.106 0.106 0.112 0.111 0.129 0.127

Top and seat angle with web cleats 0.105 0.105 0.111 0.110 0.128 0.125

Exended end plate 0.096 0.096 0.101 0.100 0.115 0.114

Rigid 0.084 0.084 0.087 0.087 0.099 0.098

increasing periods. Nevertheless, this potential beneficial

1 Bjorhovde, R., Colson. A. and Brozzetti, J. ~A classification system

effect can be realized only if instability failure is precluded.

for beam to column connections', ASCE, J. Struct. Engng 1990, 116,

For a given damping ratio ~', the time required for a semi- 3059-3076

rigid frame to cease vibration is longer than that of its rigid 2 Eurocode 3, 'Design of steel structures: part 1 - general rules and

counterpart. On the other hand, for a given magnitude of rules for buildings', European Community, Brussels, Belgium, 1990

damping c, the number of cycles required for a semirigid 3 Narayanan, R. (Ed.) Steel framed structures: stability and strength,

Elsevier, UK, 1985

frame to cease vibration is less than that of its rigid counter- 4 Chen, W. F. (Ed.) Joint flexibility in steel .[?ames, Elsevier, New

part. York, 1987

The presence of semirigidity, geometrical nonlinearity 5 Chen, W. F. (Ed.) Steel beam-to-column building connections, Elsev-

and column inelasticity is to shift the response curves ier, New York, 1988

6 Lorenz, R. F., Kato, B. and Chen, W. F. (Eds) Semi-rigid connections

toward the low frequency range. For a given forcing fre-

in steel frumes, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,

quency, the response of a semirigid frame may or may not McGraw-Hill, New York, 1993

be more severe than that of its rigid counterpart. The 7 Chert, W. F., Goto, Y, and Liew, R. Stability design o[' semi-rigid

response is therefore frequency dependent. An increase in .fi-ames, Wiley. New York, 1996

damping ratio ~ will muffle frame response. This reduction 8 Sivakumaran, K. S.. "Seisnfic response of multi-storey steel buildings

with flexible connections ", Engng Struct. 1988, 10, 239 248

in response appears to be a function of ~"only and seems 9 Nader, M. N. and Astaneh, A. 'Dynamic behavior of flexible, semi-

to be affected neither by semirigidity nor by geometrical rigid and rigid steel frames', J. Constr. Streel Res. 1991, 18, 179-192

nonlinearity. 10 Guh, T. J., Astaneb, A., Harriott, J. D. and Youssef. N. 'A compara-

Earthquake response spectra for semirigid frames and tive study of the seismic performance of steel structures with semi-

rigid joints', Proc. ASCE Structures Congress '91, New York, 1991,

rigid frames with or without P-delta effect are quite compa-

pp 271-274

rable indicating that the response spectrum method used for 11 Harsoyo, Gerstle, K. H. and Shing, P. B. 'Earthquake safety of flexi-

the design of rigid frames can also be used for the design bly-connected steel frames', Proc. ASCE Structures Congress '91,

of semirigid frames provided that the natural periods of the New York, 1991, pp 275 278

semirigid frames can be estimated correctly. A simple for- 12 Chan, S. L. "Vibration and modal analysis of steel frames with senti-

rigid connections', Engng Struct. 1994, 16(1), 25-31

mula by which natural periods of semirigid frames can be 13 Leon, R. T. and Shin, K.-J. 'Pedbrmance of semi-rigid frames', Proc.

estimated was presented to facilitate the design of such ASCE Structures Congress XIH, New York, 1995, pp 1020-1035

frames. 14 Zhu, K. AI-Bermani, F, G. A., Kitipornchai, S. and Li, B. 'Dynamic

Investigations are currently underway to study the effects response of llexibly jointed frames', Engng Struct. 1995, 17(1),

575-580

of semirigidity, geometrical and material nonlinearities on

15 Chen, W. F. and Lui E. M. Stability design o# steel fi'umes, CRC

the response of multistorey building frames. The results of Press. Boca Raton, FL, 1991

this study will be presented in a future paper. 16 'Load and resistance factor design specification lk)r structural steel

buildings', American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL,

1993

17 Kishi, N. and Cben, W. F. ~Data base of steel beam-to-column con-

Acknowledgment nections', Structural Engineering Report STR-86-26, School of Civil

Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 1986

The work reported in this paper was made possible by the 18 Berg, G. V. Elements of structural dynamics, Prentice-Hall, Engle-

wood Cliffs, NJ, 1989

financial, technical and administrative support provided by 19 Lui, E. M., Shao, Y. and Liang H. 'Stability analysis of semi-rigid

Mr Daniel P. K. Tam. This generous support is much frames under seismic excitation'. Proc. SSRC 5th Int. Coll.,

appreciated. Bethlehem PA, 1996, pp 395-404

- Dynamics Lecture_Part 2-MshafikUploaded byMoustafa Shafik
- Vibration Analysis for GearsUploaded byElvir911
- aectp-400-3Uploaded bydnpscribd
- Pile Group Stiffness for Seismic Soil-Structure InteractionUploaded byDani Goodone
- ALTAIR Info-Tag Strukturmechanik 2015-3-24Uploaded byOlli1974
- Ch8notes PDFUploaded byAshish Loya
- Case Study1Uploaded bylankymalnad
- Introduction to Time Wave Form AnalysisUploaded bysaidha4568483
- ngbUploaded byJanatan Choi
- Experimental Dynamic Analysis of Rotating Shaft Subjects to a slant crack.pdfUploaded byZiad Al Sarraf
- Vibratingfeeder 150211110459 Conversion Gate01Uploaded byManekGoris
- 2014 - Montazer - Damage Detection.pdfUploaded bypaulkohan
- Dynamics and Vibrations_ Notes_ Free Undamped VibrationsUploaded byNavin Kumar
- Terratek Integrity Monitoring of StructuresUploaded byoniel888
- Rtiwari Rd Book 11aUploaded bymghgol
- 02-xbelat01.pdfUploaded byRobson Oliveira
- Synopsis suraj.docxUploaded byAKHILESH KUMAR
- elmarsafawi1992Uploaded byMohamed Mamdoh
- 0814040013 - Ayu Ratnasari.docxUploaded byPc Mahardika
- Micro SlipUploaded byHenriqueFarreGuerra
- chapter1 history.pdfUploaded byBen Ahmed
- 0.0 Course Introduction S17Uploaded byAlex Garcia
- Final Report(Final Version)Uploaded byDaisy Tsz Yu Wong
- intern 1Uploaded byMAJIN MATHEW 1867303
- Membranes Under PrestressUploaded bySparrow Jack
- Cas History for MotorUploaded byTheerayoot
- bb0694.pdfUploaded byGerman Orlando Salcedo Sarmiento
- A Fresh Look at the Wind-moment Method 1999Uploaded byb5764334
- ACIST_Article1gUploaded byNachum Medlinger
- Analytical Qualification of Heliborne TDEM Equipments Subjected to Static Shock and Vibration Loadings 2014 Procedia EngineeringUploaded byalkhiat

- License You AcceptedUploaded bylincol
- Book1wwUploaded bykhaledmegahed
- dsdsssUploaded bykhaledmegahed
- Release NotesUploaded byLo Hi
- dsdsUploaded bykhaledmegahed
- StudyUploaded bykhaledmegahed
- Abaqus Dispacemlent at FailureUploaded bykhaledmegahed
- abaqus dispacemlent at failure.txtUploaded bykhaledmegahed
- abaqus dispacemlent at failure.txtUploaded bykhaledmegahed
- Book1Uploaded bykhaledmegahed
- AISC.shapes.database.v13.0Uploaded bykhaledmegahed
- New Microsoft Excel Worksheet.xlsUploaded bykhaledmegahed
- docsssumentUploaded bykhaledmegahed
- ConnectSAP2000v17andETABS2015HelpUploaded bykhaledmegahed
- PortalPlus1.5Uploaded bykhaledmegahed
- ddfsUploaded bykhaledmegahed
- Racunanje Duzine Linija TLENUploaded bySladjan Ilic
- TeklaUploaded bykhaledmegahed
- dsUploaded bykhaledmegahed
- skhdsdfb sadnmUploaded bykhaledmegahed
- sfdnkdfslks nfkdes;bsdafUploaded bykhaledmegahed
- TransformUploaded bykhaledmegahed
- xsUploaded bykhaledmegahed

- 7 steps to publishing in a scientific journal.pdfUploaded byRiko Piliang
- Lessons Learned.pdfUploaded byAmira Nabilla
- TelekinesisUploaded byXristos Grigore
- Basec CablesUploaded bySai Sangeet C
- Hotel Reservation System FINALUploaded byMichael Fabito
- Flix BoroughUploaded byariesyiha
- CE384-I-Introduction.pdfUploaded byKathirgamanathan Sivanathan
- cpu-05-2011Uploaded byMehdi Khajeh
- The Genetics of Mexico Recapitulates Native AmericanUploaded byAle Ortega
- اسئلة واجوابة فى الجسورUploaded byalfaza3
- ScribdUploaded byMehuel
- A COMPARATIVE EXAMNATION OF THE SAFETY PROGRAMS AT UCLAUploaded byroem1104
- 244773350-4-CASE-ADT-TRAN-pdf.pdfUploaded byRached Douahchua
- XM3000_Series_Instruction_ManualUploaded byValentin Duta
- 4 2 3 give me direction design briefUploaded byapi-272055202
- Chapter 3 -Manager CHE620 Project ManagementUploaded byMyaIdzahar
- Origin Wireless Turns Popular Mesh Routers Into Smart Sensing StationsUploaded byPR.com
- Resiliance, Reliability and RedundancyUploaded byRafael Feria
- En - 01 - Introducere. BiblioteciUploaded byBoldojar Laura
- Zoetmulder 1971 Indonesia Wayang as Philosophical ThemeUploaded byCatherine Bourdonneau Tran
- Sam Carpenter Work the SystemUploaded byManos Koufakis
- Hydrographic Survey (River Gauging & Marine Survey) By D.M SiddiqueUploaded byRazi Baig
- Statistics Assignment ExpertsUploaded byStatisticsAssignmentExperts
- v82i05Uploaded byAntonio Eleuteri
- hw1_331Uploaded byUrAvgAzn
- Learnvray Training ProgramUploaded byStefan Pavaluta
- vibisospecUploaded byNagendra Patel
- Surds and IndicesUploaded bynavya
- Clarificação.pdfUploaded bySucroEnergia
- sdfwefgwegregeagUploaded bySoc Pigao