seismic of older concentrically braced frames charles roeder (pi) dawn lehman, jeffery berman...
TRANSCRIPT
Seismic of OlderConcentrically Braced Frames
Charles Roeder (PI)Dawn Lehman, Jeffery Berman (co-PI) Stephen Mahin (co-PI nees@berkeley)
Po-Chien Hsiao (GSR) University of Washington
Seismic Vulnerability of CBFs• Current research has focused on improving
seismic performance of Special Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs).
• Redesign of gusset plate can double drift capacity.
• Prior to 1988, modern capacity-design principles were not in place.
• Preliminary study to evaluate the vulnerability of older CBFs using PBSE and ATC P695.
Changing the Design of SCBFsPost-1988/Beyond (SCBF)• Brace
– Kl/r <~ 100– b/t – seismically
compact (1997)• Gusset
– Designed for brace material overstrength
– Accommodate out-of-plane rotation of brace
• Conventional: linear• Improved: elliptical
Pre-1988 (NCBF)• Brace
– No limit on KL/r– No limit on b/t
• Gusset– Nominal tension capacity
of the brace (lateral forces)– No provisions
accommodating out-of-plane rotation of the brace
Comparing SCBFs and NCBFs
1. Experimental Results
2. Analytical Modeling
3. Performance Evaluation
Experimental Results
UW : Single-Story SCBF
W12x72 Columns
W16X45 Beams
HSS 5x5x3/8 Brace
Actuator
Strong Wall
Strong Floor
Load Beam
SCBF: Clearance types
Straight line (2t) Elliptical (8t) (AISC Recommendation)
Elliptical clearance allows a more compact plate
NCBF: Connection Variations• Extensive!• Some
Examples…
Example Pre-1988 Connection
• Bolted end-plateconnection
• Relative to SCBF:– Shorter brace-to-
gusset length– Gusset and
associated connections aretypically weaker than brace
Comparison of Three Tests
• Current AISC DesignProcedure
• Improved (Balanced) Design
• Older (Pre-1988)Design
Improved SCBF Response: Brace
1. Hinging at Center 2. Cupping
3. Tearing 4. Fracture
Improved SCBF: Extensive Yielding in Gusset
Brace buckling and
yielding
Extensive yielding and OOP rotation of gusset plate
Yielding of beams and columns
Comparison of L-2tp and E-8tp
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
-3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Drift Ratio (%)
Yie
ld F
orc
e R
atio
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
-3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Drift Ratio (%)
Yie
ld F
orc
e R
atio
Response of pre-1988 CBF
Analytical Modeling of CBFsComposite fiber sections
10 beam-column elements with initial imperfection through entire length
Spring-type model of gussets
Simple connection
Rigid elements
Increased strength element
Required Properties of (SCBF) Model
1.Buckling behavior of the brace is a key elements in the SCBF seismic response.
2.Significant deformation of the gusset plate connections and included in model. Variations in the design are important.
3.Local yielding of the beams and columns must be simulated.
Nonlinear Model• OpenSees was selected as analysis platform.
• Fiber-type (nonlinear beam-column) element for braces, beams and columns.
• Custom connection element(s) developed.
• Model response beyond brace/connection failure to collapse
Giuffé-Menegotto-Pinto model
(a)
(c)
(b)
(c)
SCBF ModelWell-Discretized
Fiber Cross Section
HSS
Wide Flange
Minimum of 10 Elements along
Brace Length
Overview of SCBF ModelModel
BraceFracture
Connection ModelSpring-type of Shear TabProposed model of gusset plate connections
Rigid Links
• Out-of-plane rotation of gusset plate
• Rigid offsets: brace, beam & column
SCBF: Connection Model
Modeling Brace Fracture• Fracture results from low-cycle fatigue at middle
of brace• Equivalent plastic strain limit used for continuum
analyses; not available from OpenSees analysis approach used local measure of maximum strain.
Local Pinching Initial Tearing Brace Fracture
max,c
max,t
max,max,.max)( ctrange
(a)
(c)
Basis of Model• 44 Specimens • 16 Test programs• Wide range of
slenderness(34-167), compactness (7-28),& strengths
Max. εrange
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
εrange
Cal
. εra
nge
3~6 7~8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
Cal
. εra
nge
x
4.0
3.04.0
,.max1435.0
ycalrange F
E
r
KL
t
w
max,max,.max)( ctrange
Limit State Calibration
Fracture triggered
(Ke and Dlimit were calibrated by NCBF32.)
Disp.
Load
Ke
Dlimit
Model Implementation: NCBF
ConnectionFracture
Connection ModelProposed spring-type model of gusset plate connections combined with axial fracture model of brace-to-gusset connections.
Axial Fracture Model of
Connection Calibrated by
NCBF32
Model
Comparison of Three Frames
Improved Current Pre-1988 (NCBF)
Predicting Performance of CBFs
Performance States (ATC)
Dynamic Response Analysis• 3, 9 and 20 story buildings (SAC SMRF) buildings• Emphasis on 3-story building model. • 40 Seattle ground motions (scaled)• 2% and 10% in 50 yr. events
100 100
80
3025
15
100
50
5 5 5 5
100
20
50 0 0
0
20
40
60
80
100
> DS1 > DS2 > DS3 > DS4 Br. Frac. SD>5%
Per
cen
tage
(%
)
3F (R=6) 3F (R=3) 9F (R=6)
2/50
Building Height
Impact of building height as or more significant than R
95
0 0
95
0 0
100 100
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
Bracebuckled or
yielded
Fracture ofbrace or
connection
Potentialcollapse
Per
cent
age
(%)
_
Bal-SCBF
AISC SCBF
Pre-1988NCBF
10/50
SCBF vs. NCBF
VS.
100
25
15
100
2520
100 100
35
0
20
40
60
80
100
Bracebuckled or
yielded
Fracture ofbrace or
connection
Potentialcollapse
Per
cent
age
(%)
_
Bal-SCBF
AISC SCBF
Pre-1988NCBF
2/50NCBF
vs. SCBF
Cs
SMT
ŜCT
SDMT SDCTSDMT/1.5R
CMR
CMR1.5Cd
1.5R
MCE Ground Motions
Collapse Level Ground Motions
Spectral Displacement
Spec
tral
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
Evaluation of SCBF and NCBF:FEMA P-695 Analysis
SMT
ŜCTSMT
ŜCT
Pre-1988 NCBFIncremental Dynamic Analysis
SCBF NCBF
Frame System Bal-SCBF Pre-1988 NCBFR Factor 6 8
Drifts limits 5% 10% 5% 10%SMT (g) 1.76 1.76 1.12 1.12 ŜCT (g) 1.88 2.77 2.36 3.91CMR 1.07 1.58 2.11 3.50 SSF 1.3 1.3 1.15 1.15
ACMR (CMR x SSF) 1.39 2.05 2.75 4.55
ACMR 20% 1.73 1.73 1.73 1.73Pass/Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass
Results
Conclusions• Pre-1988 CBF vulnerable to “premature”
connection failure.• Retrofit methods untested; largely absent in
ASCE-31• Connection model is critical to accurate
response and performance prediction of all CBFs. Move beyond “pinned” or “fixed”.
• Pre-1988 CBF sustains significant damage at lower levels of seismic excitation, yet exceeds performance of SCBF from FEMA 695 evaluation. Careful(re-)consideration of this approach as a design basis is needed.
Overview of New NEES Project
THANK YOU