Steel Structures Seminar 2018

Design of Seismic-Resistant
Steel Buildings – Moment-
Resisting Frames
Presenter: Kevin Cowie – SCNZ Senior Engineer
 Introduction

• NZS 3404 requirement “…possess an appropriate level of ductility…”

• Develop ductility by:
• Flexural yielding in beams
• Shear yielding of column panels zones
• Flexural yielding of columns
• Advantages
• Architectural Versatility
• High Ductility and Safety
• Disadvantages
• Low elastic stiffness
 Behavior of an MRF Under Lateral Load:
Internal Forces and Possible Plastic Hinge Locations
 Seismic Design of MRFs

• Required to be designed to NZS 3404 and HERA Report

R4-76 "Seismic Design Procedures for steel structures"
• HERA R4-76 published 1995, requires updating to reflect
changes in Steel Structures Standard NZS 3404 and the Loadings
Standard NZS 1170.5
• Design procedure and requirements determined by
seismic category chosen and whether capacity design
required
 Seismic System Category

Fully ductile (Category 1), capacity design required

Limited ductile (Category 2), capacity design required
Increase ductility demand
Nominally ductile (Category 3), capacity design not required if less than
critical height and meet structural regularity tests of NZS 1170.5
Elastic (Category 4)
 Fu

Flange Stress
Fy

Mp

NZS 3404 Clause 9.1.7.3 does not permit sharing of action

between bolts and welds
 Beam and column splices

Beam splices (BBS, BWBS, MEPS, MEPS-F) Column Splices (BTS, BCS)
 Beam to column

Moment end plate Welded Moment

(MEP Elastic, MEP-G Elastic, Limited Ductile) (WM Elastic, Limited ductile, Fully ductile)
 RBS Concept

• Trim Beam Flanges Near Connection

• Reduce Moment at Connection
• Force Plastic Hinge Away from Connection
Moment Resisting Frames - Beams with
Reduced Beam Sections
 NZ Examples

Source:
Reconstruction
Christchurch: A
Seismic Shift in
Building Structural
Systems, 2017

Acute Services Building, Christchurch

 Design Rules

• Refer to Steel Advisor EQK1002

• Based on review of international
research and AISC design
procedures
• Applicable for Category 1 and 2
MRFs
 Moment Resisting Frames with Semi-rigid
Joints

• Joints hold the original angles between the members effectively unchanged
up to a design moment capacity which is less than that of the weakest
member (i.e. beam) being connected and is designed and detailed to
accommodate the design inelastic rotation that occurs when the design
moment capacity is exceeded.
 Semi-rigid Joints Top Bolts

Sliding Hinge Joint

• Can sustain high rotation Detail A

with minimum damage Top Web

• Intended for high ductility

Bolts
(Shear)

applications
•
Bottom Web
Energy is dissipated Bolts (Sliding)
Bottom Flange
through the sliding action Bolts (Sliding)

of the joint components

Flange Bolted Joint
• Low rotation capacity
• Intended for low ductility
applications
• Energy is dissipated
through controlled yielding
of the flange plate
 Sliding Hinge Joint

• First developed HERA & University of

Auckland 2005
• Subsequent research University of
Canterbury and Auckland
• A number of projects in NZ
• Various connection configurations
 Two-way moment frames
For:
• Offers bays without diagonal members (bracing)
• Flexibility
• Resilience
• Reduces foundation demands
Against:
• Generally more costly and more complex connections than braced frames
Additional design considerations:
• Design for concurrent actions as specified in Clause 12.8.4 NZS 3404
• Square or circular hollow sections typically used as columns, concrete filled
• I sections have substantially less strength and stiffness when bent about the minor axis
• Connections
Connections – CHS Columns
 CHS Column External Diaphragm
For design guidance refer to:
• Steel Advisor CON1002
• Rational design approach
• Divide the CHS into
quadrants
• 82% of the moment
induced horizontal axial
forces must transfer to
the side quadrants
• Critical checks at various
locations
• Fillet welds
• CIDECT Design Guide No.
9
• Limited range of validity
 New Zealand Examples

Ballantynes Redevelopment, Christchurch

Justice Precinct, Christchurch

Source: Reconstruction Christchurch:

A Seismic Shift in Building Structural
Systems, 2017

Auckland Airport
 NZ Examples

The Crossing Retail, Christchurch Source: Reconstruction Christchurch:

A Seismic Shift in Building Structural
Systems, 2017

The Terraces, Christchurch

 Examples of Structures with Low Damage Seismic Load
Resisting Technologies in Wellington Region
Truss moment
Sliding frames with
hinge joint hysteretic
dampers

Base isolated
Rocking steel braced
external
frames with ring
diagrid
feder springs
structure
 Lesson 1 – Use Lock-nuts in Tension Brace
Connections and Coupler Details
• Portal framed industrial building with CBF
tension only wall bracing
• Engineering round braces joined with couplers
• Coupler unwound during cyclic loading
• Highlights importance of lock nuts to the
seismic performance of tension only bracing
connections and couplers
• Similar issue with Reidbrace connections in
Darfield earthquake

Note failed braces had no locking nuts

 Lesson 2 – Consider Sway Failure Mode in
Gusset Plate Design
• Eccentrically braced frames with gusset plate
connections
• CHS braces
• Eccentric connections
• Bottom flange restrained by fly brace to slab
• Several gusset plate connections buckled
• Sway failure mode developed
• Failure mode not observed in Christchurch
earthquake sequence
• UC connections directly welded to collector
beam – good out of plane resistance
 Buckling behaviour of brace – gusset plate
systems

• Out of plane sway mode due to:

1. Imperfections in brace and gusset plate
2. Out of plane seismic drift
3. Eccentricity in connection
• Failed gusset plates had item 3, no information
concerning items 1 and 2.
 MBIE Warning about Eccentric Cleat
Connections in Compression
• MBIE practice advisory 12 – unstiffened eccentric
cleat connections in compression
• Published April 2010
• Warned not to use flawed design model for the
design of eccentric cleat connections in
compression (ASI publication) – sway mode not
considered
• Recommended using HERA report R4-142 to
design eccentric cleat connections in compression
• Limitations on use of eccentric connections in
seismic connections
• Recommended concentric connections or the use
of a stiffener if eccentric connection used
 Connection design aids
• Pre-engineered connections
• SCNZ report 14:2007 includes
• MEP connections for UB sections – limited
ductile (gusseted solutions) and elastic (50-
100% moment)
• MEP connections for Steltech sections (50-
100% moment capacity)
• Unfortunately, report does not indicate which tee
stub failure mode was critical

• Some analysis software packages have design

modules for MEP connections
• Microstran
• Spacegass
DESIGNING EFICIENT
PORTAL FRAMES.
THE BENEFITS
NZ MADE
ELIGIBLE FOR GREEN STAR POINTS
FREE DESIGN SERVICE
SLEEK AESTHETIC
VERMIN PROOFING
COST SAVINGS
COST SAVINGS
10% WEIGHT SAVING
28% SURFACE AREA REDUCTION
18% SAVINGS IN REDUCED YIELD LOSS
50% REDUCTION IN FLY BRACING
 Comparative details
Bolted MEP vs rafter/column stub
Worst Better
• Disruptive in workshop
• More setup, handling and slows
work flow
• Increased transport volume
• More temp propping for column
erection
• More work at height
Best
• Fillet weld
• Minimised setup and
handling
• Improved workshop flow
• Minimal transport volume
• Simple column erection
• Less work at height
 Comparative details
Bolted MEP vs rafter splices

Worst Better Best

• Too many operations • Can be run through • Fillet welds
Drill, fabrication and beam line to cut • Snug bolts
welding and drill • No propping
• Difficult for erection • No fabrication or • Easy to introduce
if ‘raft roof’ lift welding preset (vs precamber)
• Tension bolts and • But increased bolt • Fewer pieces
often requires tension time and • Ridge splice
propping prior to more likely to
tensioning require propping
 Comparative details
Column size change to minimise weight
vs more weight but no splices

• Considerable more shop and

site labour
• Additional detailing time
• Minimal saving of material

• Fewer pieces
• Reduced handling
• Reduced fabrication
• Reduced welding
• Reduced shop labour
• Reduced crane time
and labour
• Minimised site labour
 Comparative details
SHS vs Angles vs Reidbrace bracing

Worst Better Best

• SHS/CHS • Reidbrace
• Angles
• Intensive fabrication • Minimal fabrication and
• Less fabrication and
and welding no welding
welding
• Additional shop • Can be processed on
• Additional shop
handling Beamline
handling
• Additional detailing • Minimal shop handling
• Additional detailing
• Greater site tolerance

Non intersecting IP’s drawn intentionally