Icha - Presentacion - Robert - Tremblay - Marzo - 2014 TRADUCIR PDF

Seismic Design of Steel Structures:
North American Practice &

Challenges for Industrial Buildings
Robert Tremblay
École Polytechnique de Montréal
Colegio de Ingenieros
Santiago, Chile
March 18, 2014
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 2
1
R
ASCE/SEI 7-10
3-1/2
4-1/2
8
7
3-1/4
6
8
2
3
Plan
• Ductile seismic design
• Braced frame systems
– Concentrically braced frames
– Eccentrically braced frames 341-10
– Buckling restrained braced frames
• Moment frames and plate wall systems

• Heavy industrial buildings: challenges
Ductile Seismic Design
1.5 1.5
1.28 W
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
V/W
V/W 0.0 0.0

h -0.5 -0.5
-1.0 -1.0
-1.5 -1.5
0.0126 h -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
1.0
Elastic / h (%)
/ h (%) 0.0
-1.0
W
0.5
T = 0.38 s h Horizontal 90 deg.
5% damping ag (g) 0.0
-0.5
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

Time (s)
4
Take advantage of the
high ductility of steel
 Ductile
response
Fu
Fy
Fracture,
instability,
etc.
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.33 W 0.5

V/W
V/W 0.0 0.0
-0.5 -0.5
h
-1.0 -1.0
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
1.0
Vy = 0.25 W / h (%)
/ h (%) 0.0
-1.0
-0.017 h
1.5 1.5
1.28 W
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
V/W
V/W 0.0 0.0
-0.5 -0.5
h -1.0 -1.0
-1.5 -1.5
0.0126 h -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Elastic 1.0
/ h (%)
/ h (%) 0.0
-1.0
W 0.5
Horizontal 90 deg.
T = 0.38 s h ag (g) 0.0
5% damping
-0.5
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

Time (s)
5
M. Englehardt Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal, 1996
1.5
1.0
0.5
M / Mpr
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06
Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal, 1996 Plastic Rotation (rad.)
Tension Inelastic buckling

yielding (typ.) with plastic hinge (typ.)
1.2
0.8
+
0.4
P / Py 0.0
Plastic -
P -0.4
Hinge
P+
-0.8
HSS 102x76x6.4 - KL/r = 112
-1.2
-8 -4 0 4 8
 / y
6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
V/W
V/W 0.0 0.0
h -0.2 -0.2
-0.4 -0.4
-0.36 W 0.018 h -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Vy = 0.25 W 1.0 / h (%)

/ h (%) 0.0
-1.0
0.4 0.33 W 0.4
0.2 0.2
V/W
V/W 0.0 0.0
h -0.2 -0.2
-0.4 -0.4
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Vy = 0.25 W 1.0
/ h (%)
/ h (%) 0.0
-1.0
-0.017 h
W 0.5
Horizontal 90 deg.
T = 0.38 s h
ag (g) 0.0
5% damping
-0.5
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

Time (s)
Effects of Magnitude and Distance

Earthquakes in California
2.5
Site Class B – 5% damping
2.0
M 7.0-7.5 M 7.0-7.5
Sa (g)
1.5 1.5
10-20 km 30-50 km
S a (g)
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period, T (s) Period, T (s)
2.0
1.6
M 6.5-7.0 M 6.5-7.0 M 6.5-7.0
S a (g)
1.2 10-20 km 30-50 km 70-100 km

1.0 1.0
0.8
Sa (g)
S a (g)
0.4 0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period, T (s) Period, T (s) Period, T (s)
1.0 M 6.0-6.5
Sa (g)
30-50 km
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period, T (s)
7
Design Spectra
& Design for Inelastic Response
2.0
1.6 1.6
Los Angeles Area Los Angeles Area
Site Class B Site Class B
1.2 1.2
Sa (g)
Sa (g), Cs
M6.0 - M7.5 Sa (Elastic)
Dist. = 10-100 km
0.8 0.8 Cs (OCBF - R = 6.0)
x 1/R
0.4 0.4
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period, T (s) Period, T (s)
8
Capacity Design Procedure

Ve
V=
Poutrelle
Poutre de toit (typ.)
R
(typ.)
Feui lle de
tabl ier métall ique
typ.)
Perimeter Brace
members connections Foundations
Contr eventement Poteau
(typ.) (typ.)
V V
Roof Bracing Anchor rods
Diaphragm members
9
Two-Step “Capacity Design” Procedure:
Grav. Grav. 1. Select Braces:
E
Design for gravity + E
Check KL/r, b/t, etc. for ductile
response
2. Design other elements :

Grav. Grav.
>E Gusset plates designed in
Cu compression for the expected
brace compressive strength
Gusset plate designed in tension
for the expected brace tensile
Grav. Grav.
>E strength
C'u
Ty Column designed for gravity
plus expected brace tensile
strength
Ductile Seismic Force Resisting Systems

Plastic Compression Plastic Shear
yielding e
Tension Hinge Tension Hinge (typ.) yielding
yielding yielding
Plastic Plastic Plastic

Hinge (typ.) Hinge Hinge (typ.)
Shear
yielding Tension
yielding
End-plate
Bending
10
ASCE 7-10
AISC 341-10
AISC 360-10
NBCC 2010
CSA S16-09
11
Building code main objective is to protect life
and prevent structural collapse under ground
motions
In view of high level of ground motion

considered (2% in 50 years) and the difficulty
in predicting ground motions and their
effects on structures …
… ductile seismic design represents an

effective strategy to achieve code objectives
by controlling the system response and force
demand.
Control of
Local Buckling
12
Expected (probable)
material strength
Liu, J. et al. (2007). AISC Eng.
Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs)

Energy dissipated in bracing members through
tensile yielding and flexural hinging
Tension Inelastic buckling

yielding (typ.) with plastic hinge (typ.)
Connections and other members expected to

remain essentially elastic
13
14
15
Rehabilitation
Kobe 1995
16
Northridge 1994
Photos from Peter Maranian, Brandow and Associates (P. Uriz Thesis, 2005)
17
Fracture in
1st cycle at
1 ≅ 2% hs
1
Uriz and Mahin (2004)

Univ. of California, Berkeley
 / hs (%)
-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
1.2
0.8
0.4
P / A gF y
0.0
-0.4
-0.8
-1.2
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
 / LH (%)
HSS 254 x 254 x 12

b/t = 18, KL/r = 42
18
19
 / h s (%)  / hs (%)  / hs (%)

-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
1.2 1.2 1.2
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4 0.4

P / Py
0.0 0.0 0.0
-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

RHS-4 RHS-2 RHS-19
-0.8 KL/r = 40 -0.8 KL/r = 40 -0.8 KL/r = 60
b0/t = 17 b0/t = 13 b 0/t = 13
-1.2 -1.2 -1.2
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
 / LH (%)  / LH (%)  / LH (%)
 / hs (%)  / hs (%)  / hs (%)
-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
1.2 1.2 1.2
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4 0.4

P / Py
0.0 0.0 0.0
-0.4 -0.4 -0.4
CHS-1 CHS-2 W-6

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8
KL/r = 42 KL/r = 62 KL/r = 67
b0/t = 30 b 0/t = 31 b0/t = 5.9
-1.2 -1.2 -1.2
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
 / LH (%)  / L H (%)  / LH (%)
20
1.2
0.8
P / AgFy f f f
0.4
0.0
.
-0.4
-0.8 KL/r = 42 KL/r = 93 KL/r = 142

HSS 254x254x12 HSS 127x76x4.8 HSS 76x76x4.8
-1.2
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
 y  y  y
Ductility at Fracture, f
25
20
15
10
f = 2.4 + 8.3 
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Brace Slenderness, = (Fy / Fe)0.5
21
W6
W4
6000
4000
2000
P (kN)
0
‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3
‐2000
‐4000
‐6000
W4 W6
Interstorey Drift Angle (%)
22
Design – Bracing Configuration
• Along any braced line, between 30% & 70% of lateral
load is resisted by tension braces
• Tension-only braced frames not permitted
• K-bracing not permitted
R. Tremblay, École Polytechnique of Montreal & D. Mitchell, McGill University 46
23
Design – Bracing Members
• Braces must resist gravity + lateral loads
• Pn in tension and compression as per AISC 360-10
• KL/r < 200
• Section must meet seismic hd limits
• For built-up sections, individual components must
meet KL/r limits and stitch subjected to shear under
buckling must meet minimum shear strength
L
N
LH
KLout ≈ 0.9 LH KLout ≈ 0.5 LH

KLin ≈ 0.5 LN KLin ≈ 0.5 LN
24
Bracing Configuration
Tension-only braced frames permitted
Bracing Members
Section must meets b/t limits that vary with KL/r
Design – Expected Brace Strengths

Texp
P / Py
C’exp
Cexp
25
1.0
C'u / AgF y (Ductility = 1.0)

0.8
Cu (S16-01, n = 1.34)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
1.0
C'u / AgFy (Ductily = 3.0)

0.8 Cu (S16-01, n = 1.34)
C'u (mean)
0.6
1.2
0.4
1.0
0.2
Cu (S16-01, n = 1.34)
0.8 Cu (AISC 1999) 0.0
Cu / AgF y
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

0.6 1.0
C'u / Ag Fy (Ductility = 5.0)

0.8
0.4 Cu (S16-01, n = 1.34)
C'u (mean)
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.2
 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
0 50 100 150 200 
KL/r 0 50 100 150 200
KL/r
Texp
C’exp
Texp = A RyFy Cexp
Cexp = A (1.12 Fcr) where Fcre = Fcr with RyFy

< A RyFy
C’exp = 0.3 Cexp
26
Texp = A RyFy
Cexp = A (1.12 Fcr) ,Fcre = Fcr with RyFy
< A RyFy
C’exp = 0.3 Cexp
Schimdt and Bratlett (2002)
27
Design – Brace Connection
Must resist brace Texp & 1.1 Cexp
Must allow for ductile rotational behavior or

resist 1.1 x brace expected flexural strength
28
Archambault et al. (1995)
Tremblay and Bolduc (2002)
École Polytechnique,Montreal
Kobe 1995
Yang and Mahin (2004)

Univ. of California, Berkeley
29
30
Kobe
1995
31
Sabelli (2003)
Sabelli (2003) Sabelli (2005)
Prototype Test Specimen
L L
C-C TS
2t 2t
g g
L L
W W
35O
Gusset Gusset
plate plate
Cover Cover
plate plate
5182 (min) @ 7937 (max)
Attachment to
load frame: Specimen
End Restraint End

35
O
Hinge
290
102
Side View Elevation
32
Design – Columns and Beams

Must resist gravity loads plus two brace force
scenarios:
• Upon first buckling & yielding (Texp & Cexp)

• In post-buckling range (Texp & C’exp)
Beams in V and inverted-V bracing must be

continuous between columns
Column sections must meet hd
Beam sections must meet md
33
Brace force scenarios for columns:
W W W W W W W W W
F3 F3 F3
Texp,3 Cexp,3 Texp,3 C’exp,3

F2 F2 F2
Texp,2 Cexp,2 Texp,2 C’exp,2

F1 F1 F1
Texp,1 C exp,1 Texp,1 C’exp,1
At Buckling Post-Buckling
Northridge 1994
Photos from Finley 1999
(P. Uriz Thesis, 2005)
34
Taiwan 1999
35
Brace force scenarios for beams:
1.2 wD+ 1.0 w L 1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L
Cexp,x+1 Texp,x+1 C’exp,x+1 Texp,x+1

FL,x FR,x FL,x FR,x
Cexp,x C’exp,x
Texp,x Texp,x
1.2 wD+ 1.0 w L 1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L
Texp,x+1 Cexp,x+1 Texp,x+1 C’exp,x+1

FL,x FR,x FL,x FR,x
Cexp,x Texp,x C’exp,x Texp,x
5 @ 9000 = 45 000
300 BF (typ.)
(slab edge)
SCBF EBF BRBF
2 @ 4000
5 @ 9000 = 45 000
= 8000
MRF (typ.)
5500
[mm]
ELEVATIONS
[mm]
PLAN
Gravity loads: Load Combinations:
Roof: Dead = 3.2 kPa 1.2D + 1.6L
Live = 1.0 kPa 1.2D + 1.0L + 1.4E
Floor: Dead = 3.5 kPa 0.9D + 1.4E
Partitions = 1.0 kPa Note: Redundancy factor, ,
Live = 3.8 kPa Seismic weight: and seismic load effects
Exterior walls = 1.5 kPa P = 7720 kN (Level 9) with overstrength factor, 0,
12635 kN (Levels 2-8) as specified in ASCE 7-10
Seismic Load Data (NCh433): 12840 kN (Level 1)
Zone 2 are not considered.
Soil Type C Steel:
A= 0.30 g BRB cores: Fyc = 260-290 MPa
In-plane torsion omitted Other members: Fy = 345 MPa
36
Static method of analysis
37
Brace Design
Column Design
599 599 599 599
2907 2907 1103 1103
2001 2001 4890 4890

169 169
169 169
7007 4092
-0.9 x 644 (D) 2492 7007 4092 4749 + 1.2 x 644 (D)
= 1913 + 1.0 x 372 (L)
= 5893
4437 2591
7916 7916
At Buckling
38
Column Design
856 856 856 856
2907 2907 331 1103
600 600 4890 4890

812 812 812 812
7007 7007 1227

-0.9 x 644 (D) 662 1227 5136 + 1.2 x 644 (D)
= 82 + 1.0 x 372 (L)
= 6280
4437 777
6085 6086
Post-Buckling
Beam Design
1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L= 8.71 1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L= 8.71
1498 -1498 1498 1498 1210 -1210 1210 1210
1103 331
2907 Mu = 2785 2907 Mu = 3939
1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L= 24.0 1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L= 24.0
2907 1103 2907

331
1077 -2800 1077 842 -2565 842
2001 4890 600 4890

Mu = 243 Mu = 243
1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L= 24.0 1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L= 24.0
2001 4890 4890

600
939 -939 939 939 556 -556 556 556
4092 Mu = 759 1227 Mu = 3896

7007 7007
[kN,m]
39
Consider more realistic brace KL
/-
0+ e
75 ng
Hi
21
60
4000
+ /-
00
45 41.6
O
W610 Beam
Bolted End
9000 Plate Connection
Brace sizes are reduced, increasing T*, reducing seismic loads …
T* = 0.55 s -> 0.65 s

C = 0.119 -> 0.093 (22% decrease in seismic loads)
40
SCBF
2 @ 4000
= 8000
5500
Eccentrically Braced Frames

Energy is dissipated through shear or flexure
in link beams
Plastic Shear e
Hinge (typ.) yielding
Connections and other members (including beams

outside links) expected to remain essentially elastic
41
Filiatrault et al.
Residential buildings
Montreal
Martoni Cyr
42
Hockey Canadian, Montreal
Wellington, New-Zealand 2013
43
Built-up rectangular tubular link beams
Contreventement non requis

pour le segment ductile !
Berman, J.W, and Bruneau, M. 2008. Tubular Links for

Eccentrically Braced Frames I: Finite Element Parametric Study.
ASCE J. Struct. Eng., Vol. 134, No. 5, pp. 692-701.
System originally developed by Prof. Povov with …
Takanashi &
Roeder
1976 Roeder
1977
Malley
1983
Kasai
1986
Ricles
1987
Engelhardt
1989
+ others
44
e M
 = p L/e V V
p
e M
V
Pinned
connection
(typ.)
M
L L V=2M/e
p  = p L/e • Symmetrical
• Pf ≅ 0 in ductile links
• Pinned beam-to-
Rigid
connection column joints
(typ.)
• Shorter beam spans
• Good clearance
L L
Design – Link Beams

Resistance can be governed by shear (short links) or
flexure (long links). Resistances affected by axial load:
Section must meet hd (md for flanges if e < 1.6 Mp/Vp )
e > d; upper limit on e applies in presence of axial load
Must meet limits on plastic rotation (p): from 0.02 rad

for e < 1.6 Mp/Vp to 0.08 rad for e > 2.6 Mp/Vp
Need for end and intermediate stiffeners; depend on

yielding mechanism & p
45
For center links (M = 0 at e/2):
For shear yielding: Vn = Vp e/2 e/2

VL
For flexural yielding: Vn = 2 Mp/e ML
ML
VL
ML
Shorter links generally preferred:

e
• Higher lateral frame stiffness
• Higher energy dissipation capacity
• Less stringent  (md for flanges)
• Easier to design beams outside links
p

p p=  p L/e

p p
hs hs
p=  p L/e
46
Design – Adjusted link shear strength
Vadj = 1.25 RyVn (I-shaped links)

= 1.40 RyVn (built-up tubular links)
May be multiplied by 0.88 for beams outside links

and for columns in structures more than 3 storeys

Must resist gravity loads plus Vadj
Column sections must meet hd. Beam outside links

and braces must meet md section requirements
L/2
e/2
e/2 L/2- e/2
Vadj
V
Vadj adj
Pbrace
Pbeam
Vadj
Vbeam
Vadj
Mbeam
P col
47
Must resist gravity loads plus Vadj
Column sections must meet hd. Beam outside links

and braces must meet md section requirements
L/2
e/2
e/2 L/2- e/2
Vadj
V
Vadj adj
Pbrace
Pbeam
Vadj
Vbeam
Vadj
Mbeam
P col
5 @ 9000 = 45 000
300 BF (typ.)
(slab edge)
SCBF EBF BRBF

5 @ 9000 = 45 000
8 @ 4000 = 32 000
MRF (typ.)
5500
[mm] [mm]
PLAN ELEVATIONS
Gravity loads: Load Combinations:

Roof: Dead = 3.2 kPa 1.2D + 1.6L
Live = 1.0 kPa 1.2D + 1.0L + 1.4E
Floor: Dead = 3.5 kPa 0.9D + 1.4E
Partitions = 1.0 kPa
Live = 3.8 kPa Seismic weight:
Exterior walls = 1.5 kPa P = 7720 kN (Level 9)
12635 kN (Levels 2-8)
Seismic Load Data (NCh433): 12840 kN (Level 1)
Zone 2
Soil Type C Steel:
A= 0.30 g BRB cores: Fyc = 260-290 MPa
In-plane torsion omitted Other members: Fy = 345 MPa
48
EBFs – Modular Links
with N. Mansour & C. Christopoulos, Univ. of Toronto
49
50
102
51
Repair using Self-compacting concrete
(Sikacrete-08 SCC)
Repair of main transverse surface
cracks using Low-viscosity injection
resin (Sikadur 52)
52
Comparisons for cycles at 0.08 rad.:
(¼’’ reinforcement plates)

(3/16’’ reinforcement plates)
53
Buckling Restrained Braced Frames
Energy dissipated in bracing members through
tensile and compression axial yielding
Unbonding Steel
Material Core
Steel Mortar
Tube Fill
Cross-Section
P P
P
P P

Wakabayashi et al. (1973)
Watanabe et al. (1988)
54
Buckling Restrained Braced Frames
1.5
1.0
0.5
V / Vy
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0
 / y
École Polytechnique 1998 Québec City (1999)

55
Vancouver (RJC)
Québec City (1999)
Montreal (Canam)
20000
CBF
V Base (kN)
10000
 Roof / hn
0.8
0.4 CBF 0
0.0
-0.4 -10000
-0.8
-20000
 Roof / hn
0.8 20000
0.4 BRB-L BRB-L
0.0
V Base (kN)
10000
-0.4
-0.8 0
 Roof / hn
0.8 -10000
0.4 BRB-S
0.0 -20000
.
-0.4 20000
-0.8 BRB-S
V Base (kN)
10000
0
Accel. (g)
0.2
0.0 -10000
-0.2
-20000
0 5 10 15 20 25 -1.0 0.0 1.0

Time (s) 1/ hs (%)
56
Global buckling:
Concrete Fill EIr , dr
P P
a0 Core
L
Local (core) buckling:
Gap P
P
P P
All-steel BRBs
2.0
1.0
V/Vy
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
y
57
Eryasar & Topkaya 2010

Usami et al. 2008
58
59
60
Specialized suppliers (U.S.)
http://www.corebrace.com/
http://www.starseismic.net/
http://www.unbondedbrace.com/
No special requirements (BRB have nearly symmetrical

response)
May be controlled by drift limit or available BRB
capacities
61
Design – BRB members
Select Ac:
BRB assumed not resist gravity loads
=> required axial strength from lateral loads only
Pn = AcFyc (compression & tension) with  = 0.9
Notes: use lower bound for Fyc
round-off Ac
Verify availability of BRB and test data
Determine stiffness factor KF for analysis
= KBrace / (EAc/Lc/c)
21
60
4000
-
+/
00
45 41.6
O
9000
Lc/c
Lc
62
Qualification tests of BRBs:
Two cyclic tests: individual BRB + sub-assemblage

Specimen Pysc within 50-120% of prototype
Specimen design, fabrication and quality control as for
prototype
Test displacements based on design storey drift bm
Tests used to demonstrate performance of the member

and connections and to provide design data
Design – BRB adjusted axial strength

Adjusted (max) brace strengths from tests:
Tadj =  AcFyc
Cadj =  AcFyc
with  and from C and T at the maximum test
deformations
Note: use upper bound for Fyc
2.0
Tmax
1.0
P / Py
0.0
-1.0
Cmax
-2.0
-8.0 -4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0
  y
63
Must resist gravity loads plus forces induced when

the braces reach their adjusted strengths
Section must meet hd (md for flanges if e < 1.6 Mp/Vp )
Beam Design
Column Design Tadj,x C adjx+1

FL,x FR,x
Tadj,x C adj,x
Tadj Cadj C adjx+1

Tadj,x
FL,x FR,x
Cu Tu
Chevron
C adj 0.9 w D
BRB Cu Tu
C adj
Tadj,x C adj,x
C adj and
1.2 w D+ 1.6 w L
C adj
64
Communication with BRB suppliers
• At design stage, verify:

– Range of Fyc
– Strength factors  & 
– Stiffness factors KF
– Py range for which test data is available
• On drawings, specify:
– Minimum Py (or Ac & Fyc), with tolerances
– Factors , and KF
– Req’d test brace axial deformations
Fyc = 260-290 MPa BRBF

KF = 1.5
R = 6.0 (as EBF)

T = 0.99 s
Q0 = 871 kN / Frame
65
SCBF BRBF
Moment Resisting Frames

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

66
Design – Beams
Section must meet hd

Must resist expected shear demand upon hinging
Must be laterally braced
L
pb
w
1.1 R y Mpb
1.1 Ry M pb
Vh Vh
L'
L' = L - 2 x - d c
Vh = wL' / 2 + 2.2 R y Mpb / L'
Design – Columns
Section must meet hd
Must satisfy “weak beam-strong column” criteria
except for:
Columns with Puc < 0.3 AcFy in single-storey buildings or
at the top storey of multi-storey buildings;
Columns with Puc < 0.3 AcFy when their total shear
contribution < 20% of total storey shear resistance and
33% of storey shear resistance along their MF line; or
Columns that have shear capacity to demand ratio 50%
gretaer than in the storey above.
67
“Weak beam-strong column” criteria:
M*: projected at member

center lines
L Cf, i+1
w w
w
1.1 Ry Mpb
Vh M'rc, i+1
1.1 Ry M pb
1.1 Ry M pb
Vh
Vh
1.1 Ry M pb
M'rc, i Vh
L'
Cf, i
L' = L - 2 x - d c x + dc /2 x + d c/2
Vh = wL' / 2 + 2.2 R y Mpb / L'
Design – Column panel zone

Must meet: t > (dz + wz)/90
Shear strength, Rn:
Vh
1.1 Ry Mpb
1.1 Ry Mpb
Vh
x + d c/2 x + dc /2
68
Design – Beam-to-column connections
Must accommodate 4% storey drift angle
Measured flexural resistance at column face at 4%
storey drift angle > 80% Mpb
Performance considered as demonstrated if pre-
qualified connections are used; otherwise must be
demonstrated through physical cyclic testing

V
hs/2
hs/2
L/2 L/2
• Design requirements
• Welding requirements
• Bolting requirements
• Requirements for 6
pre-qualified connections
http://www.aisc.org
69
Reduced Beam Section Bolted Flange Plate
Welded Unreinforced Flange
Welded Web
Bolted End Plate
Conxtech Conxl
Kaiser Bolted Bracket

70
MRF
Example
71
At Level 1:
 M*pb = 656 + 738 = 1394 kN-m
72
Steel Plate Shear Walls
Energy dissipated through web plate (infill panel)

yielding and plastic hinging in beams and at the
base of columns

73
ING St-Hyacinthe
Quirion Metal
Louis Crépeault
Groupe Technika R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 148
74
University of Alberta (1997)
5000
4000
3000
2F Shear Force (kN)
2000
1000
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Interstory Drift (% )
5000
4000
3000
Base Shear Force (kN)
2000
1000
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Interstory Drift (% )
Work by Bruneau, Tsai et al.
75
MF + web plate Vmf
 V
= + = 
Vw
Distribution of Vx from analysis
Infill panel designed for 100% Vx

Beams Mpb such that VMF = 2  Mpb/hs > 0.25 Vx
Design of web plate


76
Design of beams (HBE)
and columns (VBE)
qi
i+1
V bl,i (T sin ) i+1
(T cos )i+1 h i+1
M' pb,i Vbr,i Fr,i
C b,i Cb,i
C b,i
M'pb,i M'pb,i
(T cos ) i V br,i (T sin ) i
hi
i
L - 2 x - dc
Ti = t w,i Fy x + dc /2
2 2
C b,i = [ (T h sin  ) + (T h sin  ) ] / 2
i+1 i
Beam-to-Column Connections
Type LD MRF
CP groove welds
qi Backing bar removed
Run-off tabs removed
i+1 Reinforcing fillet welds
Vbl,i
 i+1 Tr = 60% Tr in Cl. 21.3
M'pbl,i
Pbr,i
P
bl,i
M'pbr,i
i V br,i
i Beams:
Class 1 or 2
L - 2 x - dc
Columns:
Class 1, W Shapes
Beam
77
Corner cut-outs
Purba, R. and Bruneau, M. 2007.

Design Recommendations for
Perforated Steel Plate Shear
Walls. Report MCEER-07-0011,
SUNY Buffalo, NY.
Vian, D. and Bruneau, M. 2004. Testing of Special

LYS Steel Plate Shear walls. Proc. 13th WCEE,
Vancouver, BC. Paper No. 978.
Optimization of infill plates
Use of thin infill plates
0.9 mm thick ASTM A1008 (cold-rolled, carbon, commercial

steel sheet)
Berman, J.W. and Bruneau, M. 2005. Experimental

Investigation of Light-Gauge Steel Plate Shear
Walls. ASCE J. of Struct. Eng., 131, 2, 259-267.
78
Perforated infill plates
Purba, R. and Bruneau, M. 2007. Design

Recommendations for Perforated Steel
Plate Shear Walls. Report MCEER-07-0011,
SUNY Buffalo, NY.
Vian, D. and Bruneau, M. 2004. Testing of Special

LYS Steel Plate Shear walls. Proc. 13th WCEE,
Vancouver, BC. Paper No. 978.
Perforation
(typ.)
45o 45o
V
> 4 rows
V
> 4 rows
*
Li
g
D
ia
Sd
D / Sdiag > 0.6

S
di
ag
*
D < * < D + 0.7 Sdiag
79
80
Warning!
Only basic design requirements have been

discussed; several other requirements must be
applied including those related to loads and
load combinations, demand critical welds,
protected zones, bracing, quality control, etc.
Only the systems designed and detailed for

high ductility have been introduced; provisions
also exist for other systems exhibiting
moderate and limited ductility that may be more
appropriate for some applications.
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal 162
81
Bruneau, M., Sabelli, R., and Uang C.-M.
(2003) Ductile Design of Steel Structures, 2nd
ed., Wiley
AISC. (2013) Seismic Design Manual, 2nd ed.,

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

C., Foltz, B., and Pettinga, D. (2013)
Elements of Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 3rd ed.,
Presses Internationales Polytechnique (PIP)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal 163
82
Seismic Design of Heavy Industrial

Buildings : Challenges
83
Observations / Issues:
• Structures are not buildings:
– Irregular structures with heavy point masses and loads
and low damping
– Design is process driven and structure will likely be
modified to accommodate changes to the process
– Equipment may interact with the structure
– …
• Structures may have limited redundancy
• Damage under severe earthquakes must be limited:
– Structures may contain hazardous material
– No or short downtimes
• Application of ductile seismic systems not practical,
often impossible
• Current building code provisions not suitable
Possible avenues:
Ductility (or alternative similar approach) needed to accommodate
uncertainty in ground motions and seismic response
1. Simple code provisions to control inelastic demand:

low R factors , use of dynamic analysis, etc.
2. Use of ductile anchorage systems with minimum
stretch lengths in combination with shear keys
3. Use ductile fuses in key structural elements to
control the force demand
4. Where applicable, use sliding or rocking systems to
control input
Above avenues are listed in order of ease of implementation
implementation and flexibility for future process changes;
however, the latest ones could be more effective
84
In Canada, industrial structures are buildings and National
Building Code (NBCC) applies.
New Annex proposed for inclusion in CSA S16-14 and which

would be referenced in NBCC 2015:
Recent related research work:
1. Demand prediction from RS analysis

2. Use/design of ductile anchorage
3. Ductile structural fuses
4. Multi-tiered braced frames
85
Demand Prediction from RS Analysis
• Plan dimensions: 36 m x 60 m x 40 m
• Heavy equipment, including 1200t & 750t tanks
• Irregularities in mass and stiffness
• Montreal Site Class C
• Static, Response Spectrum & Linear response history
analyses
86
Structure has a large number of contributing modes
140 STAT-CNBC
STAT-ASCE
120
SPECTRALE
100 TH-MÉDIANE
Displacement (mm)
TH-84e CEN
80
60
40
20
0
Level
87
Use & Design of Ductile Anchors
5600
22 400
16 800
2 x 40t cranes
3 sites: Montreal, Vancouver & Seattle

1675 25 000 1675
Seismic force demand from linear
response history analysis
Ductile anchors at column bases
P/R yPy 1.2
1.0 Strength ( = -1)
0.8 Strength ( = 1)
0.6
0.4
0.2 Stability ( = 1)
Stability ( = -1)
0.0
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
-0.2
M/R yM p
-0.4
-0.6
88
Elastic time history analysis
Vancouver (Site Class C)
1.0% 0.6 150% Ext. base col.
Crane level Crane level
Acceleration (g)
Top column
Stress Ratio (%)

c/h , r/h (%)
0.8% Roof level Roof level

0.4 100%
0.6%
0.4%
0.71%
0.67%
0.70%
0.66%
0.67%
0.63%
0.87%
0.81%
0.2 50%
120%
107%
121%
106%
115%
102%
149%
120%
0.44
0.42
0.37
0.42
0.51
0.52
0.2%
n.a.
0.0% 0.0 0%
STAT SPEC TH-MedTH-84th STAT SPEC TH-Med TH-84th STAT SPEC TH-Med TH-84th
Analysis method Analysis method Analysis method
Seattle (Site Class D)

) ) )
1.2% 0.8 200%
Crane level Crane level Ext. base col.
Acceleration (g)
Stress Ratio (%)

c/h , r/h (%)
1.0% Roof level Roof level Top column

0.6 150%
0.8%
0.6% 0.4 100%
1.00%
0.91%
0.88%
0.79%
0.78%
0.70%
1.01%
0.93%
0.4%
160%
142%
115%
156%
94%
86%
76%
93%
0.46
0.53
0.44
0.52
0.57
0.72
0.2 50%
0.2%
n.a.
0.0% 0.0 0%
STAT SPEC TH-MedTH-84th STAT SPEC TH-Med TH-84th STAT SPEC TH-Med TH-84th
Analysis method Analysis method Analysis method
Ductile anchorage at column bases
e i
e i
total = e + i

H
e = total/R
i = total/(1 ‐ R)
 i =  x H/h
Fvertical total = e + i
A fuse   = i x h/H
Rsh Fy , fuse e = total/R
i = total/(1 ‐ R)  L = / = /0.03
h
89
Inelastic time history analysis

7 8
2 3

1
4 6
Spring for stability of Anchor rod

analysis
90
2.0%
Crane level
Roof level
1.5%
c/h , r/h (%)

1.0%
1.40%
1.24%
1.56%
1.38%
1.14%
1.14%
1.77%
1.77%
0.5%
0.0%
TH-MÉD TH-84e CEN TH-MÉD TH-84e CEN
With anchor Without anchor
yielding yielding
NCh2369 (2003)
Is 8db or 250
mm suitable for
all applications?
91
Other buildings to be examined

Chemical Industry
HeadFrame (Mining)
92
Pipe Racks
Conveyor Towers
Tank Supporting Structures
93
Ductile
Structural
Fuses
1.5
Brace Fuse Test 3CT
Without Fuse
1.0 With Fuse
25.4  bolts
V / Vy
@ 80x80 (typ.) 280 0.5

40
PL 6x63x250 (typ.)
1 (2 sides) 0.0
-0.5
64  hole 200 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

(4 sides)  / h (%)
3
1.5
Brace Fuse Test 4CT
133 Without Fuse
64 x 335 slotted hole 200 1.0 With Fuse
4 (4 sides)
V / Vy
0.5
271 133
0.0
-0.5
HS 102x102x4.8
-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
 / h (%)
94

Fuses for P Tu
HSS braces
Tf
T

Cf
C Cu

LF
P
TuF
Tf
T

Cf
C Cu
Lc P Tu
A Tf
C/T C/T

Cf
Steel Tube Steel Core Cu
Mortar Fill
Section A

LF
P
TuF
Tf
T

Cf
CuF
C
Without Brace Fuses

With Brace Fuses
1.0
 / hn (%)
0.0
-1.0
0.2
ag (g)
0
M7.0 1989 Loma Prieta
-0.2
Standford Univ. 360o
0 5 10 15 20
Time (s)
1.0 0.5
0.5
V NBCC
P / Tu
V/W
0.0 0.0
V NBCC
-0.5
Without Brace Fuses
With Brace Fuses
-1.0 -0.5
-2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
 / y B / h n (%)
95
Cut in
Angle with A HSS
reduced section bf Typ.
HSS brace
Buckling Lf Lt Lw
restraining box
Frame support
(typ.) 1000 kN
Loading Dynamic
arm actuator
W310x179 (typ.)
Pin
W360x347 (typ.)
(typ.)
3.75 m
Brace
fuse
Brace
studied
Pin
(typ.)
Horizontal
reaction block
6.0 m
96
1.5
Brace Fuse Test 5CC
Without Fuse
1.0 With Fuse
V / Vy
25.4  bolts 0.5
@ 80x80 (typ.) 280
40
PL 6x63x250 (typ.) 0.0
1 (2 sides)
-0.5
-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
 / h (%)
Cut 280
1.5
5-6
Brace Fuse Test 6CT
Without Fuse
1.0 With Fuse
Brace 1034
V / Vy
Fuse
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
 / h (%)
97
Fuses in W-Shapes
(Canam Group, Montreal)
98
99
1.2 1.2
Tu Tu
0.8 0.8
0.4 0.4
Design Design
P / AFy
P / AFy
0.0 0.0
Design Design
-0.4 -0.4
Cu Cu
-0.8 -0.8
Test 1 - LF/LH = 0.11 Test 3 - LF/LH = 0.07

-1.2 -1.2
-5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
 / hs  / hs
100
Multi-Tiered Braced Frames
X-braced CBF vs Multi-tiered CBFs

1.50
1.00
Drift (% hn )
0.50
0.00
-0.50
 = 4.2
-1.00
-1.50 Drift at h = 10.0 m
1.50 Drift at h = 6.8 m
1.00
Drift (% hn )
0.50
0.00  = 6.8
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
 = 1.6
1.0
Accel. (g)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Time (s)
101
2-tiered CBFs
Designed in accordance with AISC 341-10
SCBF – R = 6.0
Los Angeles, CA - Site class D
Braces: HSS 102x102x6.4

Columns: W310x174
Strut: W250x58
Design Storey Drift (Cd∆/H) = 0.86% < 2%
102
Design Storey (Cd∆)
2
1
H2 Mc1 Vc2
Tu2 C Mc1
u2
Vc2 2 Vc2 M c1
Vc1 1 Vc1
Mc1 C’u1
Tu1
H1 Mc1
Vc1
Vc Mc
Frame Lateral Member Forces Column Shear &

Deformation (axial loads in columns not shown) Bending Moment
103
Conclusions
• Design provisions to achieve ductile seismic
performance for building steel structures are
now available for application in practice
• Design objective is to prevent structural
collapse and structural damage & residual
deformations are expected
• Some issues still need to be addressed
• Application of this design approach not
suitable for heavy industrial applications;
specific design provisions needed for these
structures
104

Icha - Presentacion - Robert - Tremblay - Marzo - 2014 TRADUCIR PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Icha - Presentacion - Robert - Tremblay - Marzo - 2014 TRADUCIR PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seismic Design of Steel Structures:

North American Practice &

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 2

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 4

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 6

• Moment frames and plate wall systems

Ductile Seismic Design

V/W 0.0 0.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 8

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 9

0.5 0.33 W 0.5

V/W 0.0 0.0

V/W 0.0 0.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 11

Tension Inelastic buckling

Vy = 0.25 W 1.0 / h (%)

0.4 0.33 W 0.4

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

Effects of Magnitude and Distance

1.2 10-20 km 30-50 km 70-100 km

0.4 0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0 0.0

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 14

& Design for Inelastic Response

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 15

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 16

Capacity Design Procedure

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 18

2. Design other elements :

Ductile Seismic Force Resisting Systems

Plastic Plastic Plastic

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 20

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 21

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 22

In view of high level of ground motion

… ductile seismic design represents an

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 24

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

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 25

Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs)

Tension Inelastic buckling

Connections and other members expected to

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 28

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 30

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 31

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 32

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 34

Uriz and Mahin (2004)

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 35

HSS 254 x 254 x 12

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 36

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 38

 / h s (%)  / hs (%)  / hs (%)

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.0 0.0 0.0

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.0 0.0 0.0

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4