See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272566987

SEISMIC DESIGN OF STEEL MULTI-TIERED BRACED FRAMES Application of

Incremental Static Analysis for Design of Steel Multi-Tiered Braced Frames

Conference Paper · September 2014

CITATIONS READS

3 1,174

2 authors:

Ali Imanpour Robert Tremblay

University of Alberta Polytechnique Montréal
54 PUBLICATIONS 240 CITATIONS 286 PUBLICATIONS 5,894 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

NEESR: Reserve Capacity in New and Existing Low-Ductility Steel Braced Frames View project

Nonlinear analysis and seismic design of steel friction braced frames View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Imanpour on 22 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 EUROSTEEL 2014, September 10-12, 2014, Naples, Italy

SEISMIC DESIGN OF STEEL MULTI-TIERED BRACED FRAMES

Application of Incremental Static Analysis for Design of Steel Multi-Tiered Braced Frames

Ali Imanpoura, Robert Tremblaya

a
Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal, Dept. of Civil, Geological and Mining Engineering, Montreal, QC, Canada
aimanpour@gmail.com, robert.tremblay@polymtl.ca

INTRODUCTION
Multi-tiered steel braced frames (MT-BFs) consist of two or more bracing panels that are stacked
between the ground and the roof level in tall single-storey steel structures such as industrial
buildings, airplane hangars or warehouse buildings. Such an application is illustrated in Fig. 1a for
an industrial building. This bracing configuration is generally used to obtain practical and cost-
effective braced frame solutions when excessively long bracing members are needed to construct a
regular braced frame over the full building height: the length of the braces are reduced compared to
a frame with a single bracing panel, which reduces the brace slenderness and increases the
efficiency of bracing members resisting axial compression forces. In high seismic applications, it is
also easier to meet the stringent brace slenderness limits that are prescribed for ductile seismic
behaviour when the brace length is reduced. For the same reasons, MT-BFs are also utilized in tall
storeys of multi-storey buildings. Different bracing configurations including X, V, inverted-V, and
diagonal bracing can be utilized in MT-BFs, and various bracing systems such as tension-only,
tension-compression or buckling restrained braced frames are possibilities in MT-BFs.
Typically, the columns of MT-BFs are unbraced over the full storey height for buckling out of the
plane of the braced frame. When an MT-BF is located along an exterior building wall, the columns
must also resist the flexure due to lateral wind loading acting on the wall. As a result, MT-BF
columns are typically I-shaped that are oriented such that strong axis buckling or bending takes
place out-of-plane. As shown in Fig. 1b, for seismic design, intermediate horizontal struts are
placed between the columns to transfer the horizontal unbalanced brace forces that develop at
brace-to-column intersecting points after buckling has occurred in the compression acting braces.
The struts can also be extended on either side of the braced frame to laterally brace the other
columns carrying the gravity loads.
The seismic response of MT-BF structures has been studied through nonlinear response history
analyses. The results show that the brace inelastic response typically does not distribute uniformly
along the height of MT-BFs, even if the braces are well proportioned to provide uniform storey
shear resistance over the frame height [1, 2]. This behaviour is illustrated in Fig. 1b for a typical 4-
tiered BF. For this frame, inelastic deformations concentrated in the first tier, where brace tension
yielding took place first. This tier is referred to as the critical tier. Such concentration of inelastic
deformations in the critical tier induces in-plane bending demand on the columns. This flexural
demand is generally ignored in current design procedures; however, it may cause column plastic
hinging and, possibly, column instability. Non uniform drifts can also result in excessive inelastic
ductility demand on the bracing members of the critical tier, which may lead to premature low-cycle
fatigue failure of the braces. Special seismic provisions have been introduced for multi-tiered
braced frames in the steel design standard in Canada [3]. These provisions require that the columns
be designed for the axial force induced by the gravity loads plus the braces reaching their probable
axial resistances in compression and tension combined with the bending moments caused by non-
uniform frame lateral deformations resulting from brace tension yielding developing in anyone of
the tiers. In addition, out-of-plane bending moments from transverse notional loads applied at every
brace-to-column joints must also be considered in the column design. No such requirements exist in
the seismic design provisions for steel structures in the U.S. [4] and Eurocode [5].
 a) b)
Fig. 1. a) 2-tiered braced frame used for an industrial building; b) Expected seismic response for MT-BFs.

This paper presents an alternative design method for steel MT-BFs that is based on incremental
nonlinear static analysis. The main objective of the method is to determine the required column
flexural strength and stiffness such that the braced frame columns are capable of triggering brace
tension yielding in other tiers after first brace tension yielding has been initiated in the critical tier.
This response is expected to result in a more uniform lateral response and thereby prevent column
buckling and/or brace failure. In the paper, a 4-tiered braced frame with X-bracing is chosen to
introduce and apply the proposed design methodology. The frame is first designed using the current
AISC seismic provisions. Incremental nonlinear static (pushover) analysis is performed to account
for the nonlinear behaviour of the brace members. The columns are redesigned to resist the
combined axial and flexural demands and to prevent excessive tier drifts due to brace inelastic
response. The revised frame design is re-analysed using cyclic nonlinear static procedure to include
cyclic inelastic loading effects on brace strengths and the resulting column flexural demand. A
modified brace model is proposed to account for these effects in incremental (pushover) analysis.

1 DESIGN OF 4-TIERD BRACED FRAME

1.1 Member design
A tall single-storey industrial steel building located in Los Angeles, CA, was selected for this study.
The structure has 108 m x 54 m plan dimensions and two concentrically braced frames placed in
each of the four exterior walls. The braced frames have a width L = 6 m. The total height of the
frame, h, is 20 m. The height of the bottom tier is 8.0 m and the remaining storey height is equally
distributed among the three upper tiers (Fig. 2a). The loads were determined from ASCE 7-10 [6].
The frame is a special concentrically braced frame (SCBF) system designed with R = 6.0 and Cd =
5.0. The computed seismic lateral load is 544 kN per braced frame and each column must carry a
concomitant factored dead axial load (1.2 D) of 233 kN.

a) b)
Fig. 2. Initial 4T-BF design based on AISC 341-10: a) Selected members;
b) Frame deformed shape and brace loading from analysis cases1 & 2.
The braces are made from ASTM A500, grade C, square tubing with Fy = 345 MPa. The braces in
each tier are designed to resist in tension and compression the seismic storey shear. The columns
and struts are made from ASTM A992 W shapes with Fy = 345 MPa. According to AISC 341-10,
once the bracing members are selected, two analysis cases must be studied to obtain the seismic
demand in the columns and struts (Fig. 2b): Analysis case 1 where all the braces reach their
expected strength in tension (Texp) and compression (Cexp); and Analysis case 2 where all the
tension braces reach their expected yield tensile strength (Texp) whereas the compression braces
reach their expected post-buckling strength (C’exp). The columns are continuous over the whole
building height and are oriented such that in-plane moments induce bending about their weak axis.
Column section is determined based on the maximum axial force demand induced in the column
segment in Tier 1. The selected members are shown in Fig. 2a. Additional information on member
design is given in Imanpour et. al. [2]. For the frame studied, Tier 1 is identified as the critical tier
as it has the lowest horizontal shear capacity compared to other tiers, so it is expected that the
nonlinear response of the frame is being concentrated in this tier.

2 INCREMENTAL NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS

2.1 Analytical model
A numerical model was created using the OpenSees platform [7] to assess the nonlinear seismic
response of the 4T-BF. The columns and braces were modelled with fiber discretization of the
cross-section using the force-based beam-column element to reproduce the inelastic flexural
buckling response of these members. The Steel02 material with isotropic and kinematic strain
hardening properties was employed for these elements. The minimum specified steel yield strength Fy =
345 MPa was assigned to the columns whereas the expected steel yield stress (RyFy = 483 MPa) was
utilized for the bracing members. In order to initiate buckling effects, each bracing members was
assigned with an initial sinusoidal out-of-plane imperfection. Similarly, bi-directional initial out-of-
straightness corresponding to the expected column buckling mode shapes was considered for the
columns. The struts were modelled suing elastic beam-column elements. Additional detail is given
in Imanpour et al. [1].
2.2 Incremental nonlinear analysis of the frame designed in accordance with AISC 341-10
Incremental nonlinear static (pushover) analysis of the 4T-BF designed in accordance with AISC 341-
10 was performed to determine member forces and tier drifts as the frame deformed up to the
anticipated storey deflection at the MCE level (1.5 Cdδe = 1.5×5.0×46 mm = 346 mm = 1.73% h). In
Fig. 3a, the drift ratios in all tiers and the axial compression load and in-plane bending moment acting
in the right-hand side (RHS) column at the strut level are plotted against the imposed storey drift ratio.
Brace buckling occurred in all tiers at approximately 0.5% h. Drifts linearly increased in all tiers
until brace tension yielding initiated in Tier 1 at a storey drift of approximately 0.6% h. Beyond this
point, further lateral deflections essentially concentrated in Tier 1 as the tension brace in that tier
was stretched in the inelastic range. Drifts in the other tiers remained nearly constant as the tension
braces in these tiers remained elastic. In Fig. 3a, the column axial load gradually increased up to a
maximum value after all compression braces had reached their expected compression strength (Cexp)
and buckled and the tension brace in Tier 1 reached its expected yield tensile strength (Texp). The
column axial load demand then remained approximately constant as nonlinear deformations took
place in Tier 1. In-plane bending moments in the RHS column increased steadily up to initiation of
brace tension yielding in Tier 1. The moment then stayed constant up a storey drift of 1% h, after
which it rapidly increased at a growing rate. At 1.15% h, in-plane flexural buckling of the RHS
column occurred. Close examination of the results showed that column buckling took place due to
the formation of two plastic hinges due to the increasing in-plane bending moment demand
combined with the large axial compression load imposed by the braces and the gravity loading. The
first plastic hinge formed at mid-height of Tier 1 at a storey drift of 0.8% h. Upon increasing further
the roof lateral displacement, a second plastic hinge formed at the top of Tier 1, which led to
column buckling before the structure could reach the expected seismic lateral displacement.
 a) b) c)
Fig. 3. a) Seismic response of a 4-tiered BF with columns designed in accordance with a) current AISC 341-10
provisions (W610x174) and b) proposed requirements (First trial: W610x217; Final design: W360x421)

2.3 Frame design using incremental nonlinear static analysis

In order to avoid column instability under strong seismic events, the columns must be designed to
resist the combination of axial load and in-plane bending moment expected to develop when the
structure is subjected to the anticipated seismic lateral displacements. This force demand can be
obtained from an incremental nonlinear static (pushover) analysis. Using this analysis, tier drifts can
also be tracked as the roof displacement is increased, and the columns must also be provided with
sufficient in-plane flexural stiffness such that brace yielding is triggered in the non-critical tiers
before excessive brace inelastic deformation is attained in the critical tier [8]. The number of tiers
that must contribute to inelastic frame deformations is determined from the maximum allowable tier
drift, i.e. the tier drift when the maximum ductility that can be withstood by the braces and
connections designed and detailed in accordance with current seismic provisions before low-cycle
fatigue failure occurs. In this example, a maximum allowable tier drift of 2.0% of the tier height
was adopted.
In this section, the columns of the frame are redesigned to meet the above strength and stiffness
requirements. From the pushover analysis of the frame (Fig. 3a), the maximum axial force and in-
plane flexural moments in the columns are respectively equal to 3800 kN and 35 kN-m. These
demands are induced in the Tier 1 column segment at a storey drift of 0.7% h. According to Clause
H1 of the AISC 360-10 Specification, the column must be verified for in-plane flexural buckling and
out-of-plane flexural-torsional buckling. A W610x217 section is required to resist the combined
demand. A second pushover analysis is performed on the frame with these new columns to verify the
column stability condition and examine the deformation demand in each of the tiers up to the
maximum anticipated storey drift. For this revised frame, δe is reduced to 43 mm and the target roof
displacement 1.5 Cdδe = 1.61% h. Column design is therefore an iterative process as the column
section must be known to determine the target storey drift as well as the column in-plane bending
moment and frame lateral deformation profile at that drift. The maximum column axial load demand
originates from gravity loading and the forces induced by the bracing members; it therefore remains
constant in the process. The results of the pushover analysis of the frame with the W610x217 columns
are presented in Fig. 3b. In this case, column instability was prevented up to the maximum anticipated
storey drift. However, the drift in Tier 1 reached 3.0% at a storey drift of 1.61% h, well in excess of
the maximum allowable tier drift of 2.0%. Then, other trial sections were selected for the columns
with the objective of initiating brace tension yielding in the upper tiers to limit the drift in Tier 1.
Finally, a W360x421 section was required to meet both strength and stiffness requirements. The
results of the incremental static analysis of the frame with the W360x421 columns are presented in
Fig. 3c. The anticipated storey drift for this frame is 1.37% h. In this case, brace tension yielding in
Tier 2 started at a roof drift of approximately 0.7% h, followed by brace tension yielding in Tier 3 at
1.1% h. This brace yielding sequence, which resulted from the choice of a stiffer column, permitted to
keep Tier 1 drifts below the 2% limit when the frame reached the anticipated storey drift of 1.37% h.

3 CYCLIC NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS OF THE MODIFIED FRAME DESIGN

3.1 Inelastic cyclic response of the bracing members
Past experimental studies have shown that steel bracing members subjected to cyclic inelastic loading
experience progressive degradation of their compressive strength as well as growing permanent
elongation in tension. Brace compressive strength degradation is mainly due to the Baushinger effect
and residual out-of-plane deformations from previous cycles. The brace post-buckling strength
depends on the slenderness and section of the brace as well as the amount of inelastic deformations
sustained after first buckling. Brace permanent plastic elongation increases after each yielding
excursion in tension; hence, the brace tension resistance at a given time during cyclic loading depends
on the amount of plastic yielding imposed in previous cycles. When using incremental nonlinear
static (pushover) analysis in design, as proposed in this paper, the brace axial resistances in the
analysis are those computed during the first inelastic excursion, or during the first quarter of a loading
cycle, and these values may not reflect the actual brace strengths under cyclic inelastic loading. Since
the column axial load and in-plane bending demands depend on the forces imposed by the braces in
the nonlinear range, the brace model used in pushover analysis may need to be modified to include
cyclic inelastic effects on brace resistances. In this study, these effects are evaluated by means of a
cyclic nonlinear static (cyclic pushover) analysis of the frame.
3.2 Cyclic nonlinear static analysis of the modified frame design
Cyclic nonlinear static analysis was performed on the frame designed with the stiff W360x421
columns selected from the results of the incremental nonlinear static analysis. In the cyclic analysis,
progressive degradation of the brace post-buckling resistances and cumulative plastic deformations
of the braces in tension are properly taken into account. The cyclic displacement history imposed at
the roof level of the frame was adapted from the qualification test displacement protocol prescribed
for buckling restrained braced frames (BRBFs) in Appendix K of the AISC seismic provisions [3].
Since brace design for the MT-BF studied herein is governed by buckling in compression rather
than brace yielding as is the case for BRBFs, the protocol was based on the storey drift under the
specified seismic loads, δe, as well as the design storey drift, Cdδe. The protocol then included two
cycles at 0.5 δe, 1.0 δe, 1.5 δe, 0.5 Cdδe, 1.0 Cdδe, and 1.5 Cdδe.
Axial forces in the braces in Tiers 1 and 2 are shown in Figs. 4a and 4b, respectively, and the in-
plane bending moment demand in the RHS column is presented in Fig. 4c. The results from the
cyclic pushover analysis (CPA) and pushover analysis (PA) are both presented in these figures. In
CPA, brace tension yielding in Tier 2 developed at a storey drift of 0.6% h. The column moment at
this point is equal to 202 kN-m (Fig. 4c). At this point, the braces in Tier 1 have experienced
several occurrences of buckling and their compressive resistance has reduced due to cyclic loading.
From pushover analysis (PA), brace tension yielding in Tier 2 occurred at a storey drift of 0.81% h
(Fig. 3c and Fig. 4b) and the column bending moment at that drift is only 134 kN-m (Fig. 3c and
Fig. 4c). Similarly, when brace tension yielding is triggered in Tier 3, the column moments is 238
kN-m from CPA and 188 kN-m from PA, again the brace compressive strength degradation is
underestimated in PA.
This problem can be overcome by using a modified brace model that can reproduce the cyclic
degradation in brace compressive resistance in the incremental nonlinear static analysis. The model
used herein includes a truss element for the bracing members with Pinching4 material. The material
nonlinear load-deformation response in compression is defined using 4 segments: 1) initial elastic
response up to the brace compressive strength, Cexp; 2) a segment where the brace strength
gradually reduces to 0.8 Cexp at a brace axial deformation slightly exceeding the brace yield
deformation δy = 1.2RyFyLbrace/E; 3) a rapidly decreasing branch down to the load C’exp; and 4) a
plateau at C’exp. In tension, bilinear behaviour with 0.4% strain hardening ratio was considered. The
pushover analysis was redone using the proposed modified brace model (MPA) and the results are
reported in Fig. 4. With this model, the bending moments in the RHS column at onset of brace
tension yielding in Tiers 1 and 2 are respectively 195 and 231 kN-m; these values compare well
with the values obtained from cyclic pushover analysis (CPA): 202 and 238 kN-m. Such a modified
brace model could therefore be used to obtain realistic estimates of the column bending moments
from a simple incremental nonlinear static analysis. Comparing the tier drifts obtained from CPA
and MPA shows that displacements at initiation of brace tension yielding from MPA are slightly
overestimated as a result of the sharp loss in strength for the compression braces.

a) b) c)
Fig. 4. Cyclic Pushover Analysis (CPA) vs. Pushover Analysis (PA) and Modified Pushover Analysis (MPA): a) Brace
axial force in Tier 1 (kN); b) Brace axial force in Tier 2 (kN); and c) In-plane bending moment in the Right
Hand Side Column (RHSC) at Tier 1 level.

4 CONCLUSION
− Non-uniform distribution of the inelastic brace deformations over the MT-BF height imposes
large ductility demand in the bracing members of the critical tier, which may cause premature
brace failure, and in-plane bending demands on the columns which may lead to column plastic
hinging and, possibly, column in-plane instability.
− MT-BF columns should be designed to have a sufficient in-plane flexural strength and stiffness
to trigger brace tension yielding in two or more bracing panels along the height of the frame.
− Incremental nonlinear static (pushover) analysis can be used to obtain column forces and tier
drift demands for the design of MT-BFs with three or more tiers, provided that realistic brace
post-buckling strengths accounting for cyclic response are considered in the analysis.

REFERENCES
[1] Imanpour A., Tremblay, R. Davaran A., 2012. “Seismic performance of steel concentrically braced
frames with bracing members intersecting columns between floors”. 7th STESSA 2012, 9-11 January,
2012, Santiago, Chile, pp. 447-453.
[2] Imanpour A., Stoakes C., Tremblay R., Fahnestock L., Davaran A. “Seismic Stability Response of
Columns in Multi-Tiered Braced Steel Frames for Industrial Applications”. ASCE Structures Congress
2013, 2-4 May, 2013, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 2650-2661.
[3] CSA 2009. “CSA-S16-09, Design of Steel Structures”. Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, ON.
[4] AISC 2010. “ANSI/AISC 341-10, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings.” American Institute
of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
[5] CEN 2004. “Eurocode 8, EN 1998-1:2004: E, Design of structures for earthquake resistance”. Comité
Européen de Normalisation (CEN), Brussels, Belgium.
[6] ASCE 2010. “ASCE/SEI 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.” American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VI.
[7] McKenna F., Fenves G.L., 2014. “Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees)”.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), University of California, Berkeley, CA.
(http://opensees.berkeley.edu/)
[8] Imanpour A., Tremblay R., Davaran A., 2014. “A New Seismic Design Method for Steel Multi-Tiered
Braced Frames”. ASCE Structures Congress 2014, 3-5 April, 2014, Boston, MA, pp. 2707-2720.

View publication stats