Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
TECHNICALINFORMATION& PRODUCTSERVICE
APRIL 1997
Seismic Design of
Steel Column-Tree
Moment-Resisting Frames
by
Neither this document nor any part of it may be reproduced, translated or transmitted in
any form or by any means, mechanical or electronic, including photocopying, scanning, or
by any information storage and retrieval system without written permission of the author
and copyright owner: Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. The Structural Steel Educational Council
is hereby granted the right to print or reproduce this document in any number in its as-is
form prior to January 1, 2003.
The information presented in this publication is for general information only. The
information should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without
competent professional examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability, and
applicability by a licensed professional engineer or architect. The publication of the material
contained herein is not intended as a representation or warranty on the part of the
Structural Steel Educational Council, or of any other person or agency named herein, that
this information is suitable for any general or particular use or of freedom from
infringement of any patent or patents. Anyone making use of this information assumes all
liability arising from such use. The information provided in this report on seismic design of
column-tree systems is based on data available on behavior of components of the system.
At this writing no test data on the behavior of column tree system as a whole system could
be located.
ACOWIEOCMETS
The publication of this report was made possible in part by the support of the Structural
Steel Educational Council (SSEC). The author wishes to thank all Council members for
their support and comments. Particularly, written comments provided by Council members
David Berrens, Patrick Hasset, Rudy Hofer, James J. Putkey, and Jamie Winans were
very valuable and are sincerely appreciated.
The support provided by a number of agencies to the author's research on the subject of
this report at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering of the University of
California, Berkeley has been essential in collecting and developing many technologies
presented and used in this report. In particular, the support of the Kajima Corporation of
Japan and the California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE),
in the form of a CUREE/Kajima Research grant to the author, was essential to initiate the
research on this subject and gather information on it over the last five years.
The author, at present, is a member of the Structural Steel Educational Council of
California, Research Council on Structural Connections, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, American Society of Civil Engineering, Structural Stability Research
Council and the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. The opinions expressed in
this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
University of California, Berkeley where the author is a professor of civil and
environmental engineering, the Structural Steel Educational Council or other agencies and
individuals whose names appear in this report.
SEISMICDESIGNOF
STEELCOLUMN-TREE
MOMENT-RESISTING FRAMES
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS / Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS / Page iii
NOTATIONS / Page iv
1. INTRODUCTION / Page1
2. SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF BOLTED STEEL MOMENT CONNECTIONS/ Page 11
3.
4.
REFERENCES/Page 25
APPENDIX/Page 27
111
NOTATIONS
A
Ab
Ag
Agfp
Agt
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Agv
Ag,q,
Ant
Anp
Anv
^np
Fvfp
Fv
Fvp
Fup
Fyg
Fu
Fy
iv
asp
b
n
Os
vi
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Introduction
One of the most common types of steel structural system is the moment resisting framing
system shown in Figure 1.1. Depending on their ductility, steel moment resisting frames
are divided into two categories of "Special" and "Ordinary". Figure 1.2 shows typical
behavior of Special and Ordinary moment-resisting frames under lateral load. Special
moment-resisting frames are designed to have higher ductility and be able to deform
inelasticly during earthquakes. Such inelastic ductile deformations increases damping and
reduces stiffness of the structure resulting in smaller seismic forces generated in the
structure. As a result, current codes allow special moment resisting frames to be designed
for smaller seismic forces than similar but ordinary moment frames.
t
/
/
I
/
/
/
I
/
/
FORCE
Elastic
E
Ordina MomentFmn
*A
Special
Frame
I
DISPLACEMENT
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Aprfl 1997
Prior to the 1994 Northridge earthquake, field-welded moment frames were very popular
with structural engineers and steel fabricators in California. This was due to their
economy and relative ease of design. Frequently, in seismic areas, a standard field-welded
moment connection shown in Figure 1.3 was specified and built. However, the 1994
Northridge caused damage to a number of field-welded steel moment frames using the
detail shown in Figure 1.3. Other recent earthquakes such as the 1995 Kobe-Japan and the
1992 Landers-California have also caused similar damage although in only a few
structures. More information on the damage to field-welded steel moment frames can be
found in References, (Youssefet al, 1995), (SAC, 1995) and (AIJ, 1995).
Since the 1994 Northridge earthquake, a number of studies have been completed or are
underway to understand the causes of the damage, to establish consequences of the
damage (Astaneh-Asl, 1995a), (Astaneh-Asl, 1996) and to develop remedies for the
damaged as well as undamaged field-welded moment frames (SAC, 1995). Many factors
have been identified as possible cause of Northridge damage to steel field welded
connections. The main culprits at this writing appear to be the type of moment frame,
configuration of field-welded connections, stress concentrations due to back-up bars and
access holes, material properties of steel produced in the past two decades, quality control
and inspection of field welds and characteristics of the ground motion.
i
i
i
;
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Ap#11997
One of the very efficient shop-welded and field bolted systems is the column-tree system.
In a column-tree system short segments of the girders or a built-up short girder, usually
two to four feet long, are welded to the columns in the shop. Then, after the columntrees are erected in the field, the middle segment of the girder is bolted to the ends of the
short girder stubs. Figure 1.4 shows examples of special ductile column-tree momentresisting frames.
cotumEE
*,UOEB / _? I OMENT
E
,
L
O
e
O
L
T
E
O1
FIELD BOLTED
SPLICES
BRACED
FRAME
m
I
'
COLUMNT
' REE
MOMENT
FRAME
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Ap/fl 1997
Location of Details
Shims '
F""'raertub
// /
.-,
m B m
'
m j
//! ,w>
'
-;
(e
Fiadwe,ds -,
. _
.--
/ ': s;;oTG,e,s
'
S
j-
[h
.,
[[
i i
Shim is Required
tO Adiust Elvet 'in
(Jj
toAdjust Elevetaion
.!!- /
ii::l:-=i
; ::
ShopWelds J
.".
:: ; n e or TwoWebSplice Plate(s
::.:
::e
:: /'One orTwoRowsof
High Strength Bolts
:: I "--Field Welds(Fillet Weld)
I1
(d)
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, April 1997
Ordinary MRF's should have a rotational ductility of at least 0.02 radian. The cumulative
cyclic rotational capacity is suggested to be at least 0.10 radian.
When a framing system cannot be categorized as special moment-resisting frame and
therefore is categorized as ordinary moment resisting frame, the reduction factor R,, used
in seismic design is given as 6 by the seismic design codes (UBC-94). The reduction
factor for ordinary moment-resisting frames is half of the reduction factor for special
moment-resisting frames. As a result, the design seismic forces for the same building using
ordinary moment frames will be twice the design seismic forces if special moment frames
are used. Therefore, it is economically sensible and safer to use special ductile moment
frames instead of ordinary moment frames.
1.5. Types of Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames Based on Stiffness
Based on stiffness, steel MRFs are divided into the three categories of Rigid (Fully
Restrained, FR), Semi-rigid (Partially Restrained, PR) and Flexible (Simple) (AISC,
1994), (Astaneh-Asl, 1995). The parameter frequently used to define the relative
rotational stiffness of a girder and its connections is the stiffness parameter m
defined as:
Kc
(1.1)
(_)
m
=
where Kc is the rotational stiffness of the connection, and (El/L) is bending stiffness of
the girder. L is the span. For column-tree systems where the length of the beam stub
welded to the column is less than 15% of the span length, the flexibility of the rigid splice
does not have significant effects on the overall stiffness of the span. Therefore, during the
design phase, to ensure that the column-tree is a rigid frame, the length of the girder stubs
should be less than 15% of span and the rotational stiffness of the splice satisfies the
following equations for each category of the frames.
Rigid:
Semi-rigid:
Flexible:
y z 18
(1.2a)
0.5 > y z 18
(1.2b)
7 < 0.5
(1.2c)
where; 7 represents relative rotational stiffness of the splice and the girder. is given by:
Ks
(1.3)
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Apn? 1997
Therefore, if length of girder stub is less than 15% of the span, the parameters and m in
above equations are very close and approximately can be assumed to be the same.
Therefore,
(1.4)
Ks
my= E(_)
In the above equation, Ks is the rotational stiffness of the girder splice.
Figure 1.6 shows the above three regions of the moment-rotation behavior based on the
relative rotational stiffness of the connection and the girder in the frame. The above
categorization is solely based on the elastic rotational stiffness of the connections and the
girders in a single span. In seismic design, however, the plastic moment capacity of the
connections and the girders should also be considered in categorizing the span. To
categorize a column-tree moment resisting frame as rigid or semi-rigid, one should include
the relative bending strengths of the girders and splices defined by ct:
ct= Mps
Mpg
(1.4)
where, MPs and Mpg are plastic moment capacities of the splice and girder, respectively.
, =Mpc/Mpg
1.o
Semi-rigid
0.2
It
m=Ks/(EI/L)
m >__ 18
1.5a)
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tres Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Apt# 1997
Semi-rigid:
(1.5b)
Flexible:
m < 0.5
(1.5c)
The definitions of terms in the above equations are shown in Figure 1.7. Notice that m
and tx are defined for each span. Usually, in moment resisting frames there are various
span lengths, L, and moment capacities Mps and Mpg throughout the frame. It is
suggested that in design, the values of m and cz be the average value of m and tx for the
spans of the mid-height story of the frame.
Splice
.__..I
Moment /
Y
L
17-
Column-Tree Frame
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Ap/fl 1997
fuse and protect the welded connections at the face of columns from being subjected to
large moments. In addition, the use of semi-rigid connections can increase damping,
elongate the period of vibration, reduce stiffness to a desirable level and can result in a
reduction of seismic forces and displacements.
1.7. Categories Based on the Moment Capacity of the Connected Members
Depending on the relative bending moment capacities of columns and girders, a momentresisting frame is categorized as Strong-Column/WeakBeam or Strong-Beam / Weak
Column.
The strong column-weak beam frames are used very frequently and many structural
engineers believe that these systems have superior seismic behavior to that of the weak
column-strong beam frames. Most current codes (UBC, 1994) also promote the use of the
strong column-weak beam philosophy. Recent studies have shown that the steel MRFs
that develop hinges in the girders (strong column-weak beam design) can be more stable
than the frames that have column hinges (strong beam-weak column).
In the strong column-weak beam frame, the moment capacity of the beams in a joint is less
than the moment capacity of the columns. Therefore under combinations of gravity and
lateral loads, plastic hinges are expected to form in the beams. In the strong beam-weak
column design, plastic hinges are expected to form in the columns.
One of the advantages of the column-tree system is that by selecting an appropriate
moment capacity for the splice of the girder, the splice will act as a moment fuse and
prevent large moments from developing at the face of the colum.
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Reeisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, April 1997
2.
SEISMIC BEHAVIOR
OFSTEELCOLUMNTREE MOMENTRESISTING FRAMES
2.1. Introduction
Seismic behavior of a column-tree special moment-resisting frame is expected to be ductile
and satisfy code expectations of ductility. Unlike pre-Northridge field-welded moment
frames, in column-trees, the designer has a very strong tool to control and reduce seismic
behavior of the frame. This tool is the girder splice. The girder splices can be designed to
be sufficiently ductile and have a prescribed bending moment capacity. In such design,
during the earthquakes, the girder splices will act as ductile "fuses" and limit the
magnitude of forces including bending moment that can be developed in the frame.
Depending on bending strength and rotational stiffness of the girder splice, the columntree frame will behave as a rigid or a semi-rigid moment resisting system.
In the
following some information on expected seismic behavior of rigid and semi-rigid columntree systems is provided.
2.2. Expected Seismic Behavior of RIGID Column-Tree Moment Frames
and;
(2.1)
(2.2)
The first condition depends on relative rotational stiffness of the girder and the splice
while the second condition depends on relative bending strength of girder and the splice.
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Ap#11997
l l
If the above conditions are met, then the column-tree splices are stiffer and stronger than
the girders. This means that the resulting column-tree moment resisting system will
behave as a traditional ductile frame. The plastic hinges are expected to form at the face of
columns while girder splices are expected to remain elastic. Therefore, in this case, the
splices do not act as fuses, but, they are merely erection splices enabling the frame to be
fabricated as a shop welded-fieM bolted steel frame.
In bolted splices, it is expected that some small amount of slippage will occur during major
earthquakes. The slippage is beneficial and acts as a friction device and isolator to
dissipate the energy and to reduce seismic forces. Laboratory shaking table tests and
analytical studies (Nader and Astaneh-Asl, 1992, and 1996) have indicated that these
limited connection slippage do not result in noticeable increase in drift during the
earthquakes.
2.3. Expected Seismic Behavior of SEMI-RIGID Column-Tree Moment Frames
If in a column tree either one of Equations 2.1 and 2.2 above is not satisfied, the frame can
be categorized as semi-rigid (partially restrained). Technically, for a column-tree moment
frame to be considered semi-rigid, one of the following conditions need to be met:
m >18 and 0.2<(<1.0
18 > m >0.5 and ct>0.2
(2.3)
(2.4)
Seismic behavior of steel rigid and semi-rigid column-tree moment frames have been
studied in recent years (Astaneh-Asl, 1991), (McMullin et al.), (McMullin and AstanehAsl, 1996). The studies indicate that in general semi-rigid column-tree moment frames
are expected to perform as good or better than rigid frames. To obtain a ductile and
efficient semi-rigid frame that will not be too flexible for non-seismic loads, it is suggested
that the rigidity and strength of semi-rigid frame splice connections be at least 70% of the
corresponding values for a rigid connection. This can be expressed in the form of
satisfying the following criteria:
18> m >(0.7)18 and 0.7<(z<l.0
(2.5)
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Ap#11997
]2
3. CODE PROVISIONS
RELEVANTTOSTEEL
COLUMN-TREE
MOMENTFRAMES
3.1. Introduction
Seismic design codes have a number of provisions applicable to moment frames. These
provisions were discussed in a Steel Tip report (Astaneh-Asl, 1995). In this chapter, a
summary of applicable provisions in the Uniform Building Code (ICBO, 1994) to design
of special column-tree moment-resisting frames is provided.
The information is
applicable to rigid frames.
3.1. Provisions in UBC on Bolted Special Steel Moment Frames
The Uniform Building Code, UBC-94, has the following provision regarding strength of
girder-to-column connections in special moment-resisting frames (SMRF), including
column-tree special moment-resisting frames.
Sec. 2211.7.1.1 Required strength. The girder-to-column connection shall be
adequate to develop the lesser of the following:
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Aprf11997
13
(3.1)
The EXCEPTION in the above UBC provision is primarily for shear and semi-rigid
connections that are not considered in design as part of the lateral- load resisting system.
Section 1631.2.4 of the UBC-94 (ICBO, 1994) has the following provisions on the issue:
Sec. 1631.2.4 Deformation compatibility. All framing elements not required by design
to be part of the lateral-force-resisting system shall be investigated and shown to be
adequate for vertical load-carrying capacity when displaced 3(Rw/8) times the
displacement resulting from the required lateral forces. P A effects on such elements
shall be accounted for. For design using working stress methods,. ..... "
(Reproduced from the 1994 Uniform Building Code, copyright 1994 with the permission of the
ublisher, the International Conference of Building Officials.)
The first and second printing of the Uniform Building Code (ICBO, 1994) in its Section
2211.7.1.3 has provisions permitting the use of "Alternate" connections which includes
bolted special moment-resisting frame connections. In the aftermath of the 1994
Northridge earthquake and damage to welded special moment frame connections, the
ICBO Board of Directors on September 14, 1994 approved the following emergency
code change.
Reference (Building Standards, 1994) made modifications to the 1994 Uniform Building
Code and stated that:" Connection configurations utilizing welds or high-strength bolts
shall demonstrate, by approved cyclic test results or calculation, the ability to sustain
inelastic rotation and develop the strength criteria in Section 2211.7.1.1 (of UBC-94)
considering the effects of steel overstrength and strain hardening."
Seismic Design o! Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhaesan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, April 1997
14
4. SEISMIC DESIGNOF
STEELCOLUMN-TREE
MOMENT-RESISTING
FRAMES
4.1. Introduction
Seismic design of rigid column-tree MRFs is similar to seismic design of welded MRFs.
First, seismic lateral loads need to be established following the governing code. Second,
seismic forces in combination with gravity loads are applied to a realistic model of the
structure and by analyzing the structure component forces and nodal displacements are
calculated. Finally, the components (i.e. girders, column, girder-to-column connections
and girder splices) are designed to carry the applied loads. In addition, like any frame the
lateral drifts are calculated and checked to ensure that the drift is less than allowable
values.
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, April 1997 15
are
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Ap#l 1997
16
Ductile
Slippage
Mode
Ductile
Failure
Modes
-)
Ductile/brittle
Failure
Modes
;L
hr'
"
.J
Brittle
Failure
Modes
Figure 4.1. Failure Modes of Top and Bottom Flange Plate Connections
Ductile Failure Modes:
a. Slippage of the flange bolts
b. Yielding of the gross area of the top and bottom flange plates
c. Bearing yielding of the bolt holes in the girder flanges and the flange plates
d. Yielding of the gross area of the girder
Failure Modes with Limited Ductility:
e. Local buckling of the top and bottom flange plates
f. Local buckling of the girder flanges
g. Shear yielding of the column panel zone
Relatively Brittle Failure Modes:
h. Fracture of edge distance or bolt spacing in flange splice plates
i. Block shear failure of flange splice plates
J. Shear fracture of flange bolts
k. Fracture of flange plate welds (in bolted-welded splices)
1. Fracture of net areas of the flange splice plates
m. Block shear failure of girder flanges
n. Fracture of edge distance or bolt spacing in flanges of the girder
o. Yielding of the gross area of the web splice plate due to combined shear and
bending
p. Shear fracture of web bolts
q. Fracture of net area of web splice plate or girder web
r. Fracture of net area of girder.
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, April 1997
]7
The failure modes in the above list are given in the order of their desirability. Slippage of
flange bolts followed by yielding of the flange plates are the most desirable failure modes
(first two failure modes in the above list). The fracture of net area of the girder ( the last
item in the above list) is the least desirable failure mode.
(4.])
4.4.b. Yielding of Gross Area of Top and Bottom Flange Splice Plates
To increase ductility of the connection, yielding of flange splice plates should be the
governing failure mode. To achieve this, moment capacity of splice can be limited such
that when splice plate moment reaches plastic moment value, the moment in the girder
connection to the column does not exceed plastic moment of the girder. In doing so,
yielding of the splice plates acts as a fuse to protect the welded connection of the girder to
column. Figure 4.2 shows the relationship between the plastic moments of the splice and
the girder.
Mpg
I-
Mpg=Mps+Va
V=2Mps/(L-2a) + q(L-2a)/2
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Apt# 1997
18
To have desirable behavior of splice acting as a fuse, the following criterion is suggested:
Mps < Mpg-Va
(4.2)
(4.3)
In addition to above criterion, it is suggested that the moment capacity of splice plates be
greater than 1.25 times the bending moment calculated by the analysis. This means:
Mps > 1.25 Ms
(4.4)
4.4.c. Bearing Yielding of Bolt Holes in Girder Flange and Splice Plates
Bearing yielding of the bolt holes is beneficial in reducing seismic response during extreme
events. It is suggested that in seismic design the following criterion be used:
Mpb > 1.25 Mps
(4.5)
(4.6)
- r
Free Length of PI
= = = = ;I
,,
o',',.
,,
,o
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, April 1997 19
VPz >
(4.7)
r. = 0.ssJ*y a, t [
3bf t
1 + - -]
dbd t
(4.8)
As an alternative, until the cause of panel zone fractures is established and a realistic
design equation is developed (or the above equation is validated), the author suggests the
use of equations that are given in the AISC-LRFD Specification (AISC, 1994). The
equations are given for panel zone design when the effect of panel zone deformation on
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Apd11997 20
(4.9a)
(4.9b)
Fracture of edge distance by itself may not be catastrophic, but during cyclic loading a
crack within the edge distance can jump the bolt hole and fracture the entire width of the
plate or girder flange. On the basis of the limited information currently available on the
cyclic behavior of bolt edge distances, it is suggested that in special moment frames bolt
edge distances should not be less than 1.5 times the diameter of the bolt and preferably 2.0
times the diameter. In most bolted connections, there is sufficient width of plate or flange
to accommodate easily an edge distance equal to twice the bolt diameter. The bolt
spacing, due to automation of drilling or punching is usually specified as 3 inches. In the
absence of any report of failure of bolt spacing during earthquakes or in laboratory tests,
it appears that 3 inch spacing is satisfactory.
4.4.i. Block Shear Failure of Flange Splice Plates
To ensure that this relatively brittle failure mode does not occur before the plates yield, the
following condition is suggested:
Pn > 1.25 4) Mp (pi)
(4.10)
/d
Pn =
0-6FyAgv + FuAnt
(4.11 a)
Pn =
0.6FuAnv + FyAgt
(4.1 lb)
This failure mode can occur when after slippage of the bolts and some beating yielding, the
applied moment is totally carded by the shear strength of the bolts. To encourage yielding
of steel before bolt shear failure, the following criterion is suggested:
*bFbAb N d >-dMps
(4.12)
4.4.k. Fracture of the Welds Connecting the Splice Plates to Girder Flanges
The welds on splice plates are usually fillet welds and should be designed to develop 1.25
times axial yield capacity of the plates.
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames O by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, April 1997
21
(4.13)
qVywp
(4.14)
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Apn? 1997
22
This failure mode if occurs can have catastrophic consequences due to the fact that the
span can collapse. To prevent this failure mode from occurring before the yield failure
occurs, the following criterion can be used.
V
)2+(
Ve
)2 < 1.0
(4.15)
(4.16)
where Mng, the ultimate moment capacity of the net area of the girder can be
calculated as:
Mng = (Zx-N d htf) Fu
(4.17)
4.4.s Check Welds Connecting the Girder to Column:
The full penetration welds connecting the girder flanges to column face should be done
using material and complying with the procedures that result in ductile welds. More
information on this can be found in Reference (SAC, 1995).
The fillet welds connecting the web of the girder to the column flange are suggested to be
designed for a force equal to 1.25 times shear capacity of the web of the girder:
qbnVw > 1.25 qb (0.6Fy)(tw d)
(4.18)
(4.19)
The above rotational stiffness represents initial elastic stiffness of the splice and can be
used in elastic analysis of the column-tree frames to obtain design forces. Also, the above
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames O by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Aprg 1997
23
value of rotational stiffness may be used in establishing m values in categorizing the frame.
However, if more accurate calculation of displacements, particularly drift values under
factored loads, is desired, the flexibility of the connection due to slippage of bolts should
be included. The following equation is suggested for establishing rotational stiffness of
connection including slippage:
Ms
Ms
Ms
(4.20)
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Apd11997
24
25
Englekirk, R., (1994), 'Steel Structures, Controlling Behavior Through Design",, John
Wiley and Sons Inc..
Guh, T. J., Astaneh, A., Harriott, J. and Youssef, N. (1991) "A Comparative Study of the
Seismic Performance of Steel Structures with Semi-Rigid Joints", Proceedings, ASCEStructures Congress, 91, Indianapolis, April 29-May 1, pp. 271-274.
ICBO, (1994), "The Uniform Building Code", Volume 2, The International Conference of
Building Officials, Whittier, CA.
Kulak, G. L., Fisher, J. W., and Struik, J. H. A., (1987) "Guide to Design Criteria for
Bolted and Riveted Joints", Second Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
McMullin, K., Astaneh-Asl, A., Fenves, G. and Fukuzawa, E., "Innovative Semi-Rigid
Steel Frames for Control of the Seismic Response of Buildings", Report No. UCB/CESteel-93/02., Dept. of Civil and Env. Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
Nader M. N. and Astaneh-Asl, A., (1991) "Dynamic Behavior of Flexible, Semi-Rigid and
Rigid Steel Frames", Journal of Constructional Steel Research Vol. 18, PP 179-192.
Nader, M. N. and Astaneh-Asl , A., (1996)" Seismic Behavior of Semi-rigid Steel
Frames", J. of Structural Engineering ASCE, No. ST7, July.
Porter K. A. and A. Astaneh-Asl, (1990), "Design of Single Plate Shear Connections with
Snug-tight Bolts in Short Slotted Holes," Report No. UCB/SEMM-90/23, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, December.
SAC Joint Venture, (1995), "Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification and
Design of Welded Steel Moment Frame Structures", Report FEMA 267, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C. August.
Youssef, N. F. G., Bonowitz, D. and Gross John L., " A Survey of Steel MomentResisting Frame Buildings Affected by the 1994 Northridge Earthquake", Report No.
NISTIR 5625 National Institute of Standards and Technology, Washington D.C., April.
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, April 1997
26
APPENDIX
A NUMERICALEXAMPLE
--
el:;
c:C
rn
c:
=E
tn
ri:
[=
- -
C
D
I
cie
-.
ca
?-E-
car' __
__
b
nar
OI
i_
3@30'-0'
27
;!'
i,
.
FlangeSplicePlate
/
.
'
.
.
.
.
/ H.S.FieldBolts
.
.
.
.
. "
. .
.
.
i . . . 11
. . . . . . . .
,.s. ,o,,
.....................
W24x6
. i
W24x6
. . . . . . ._ i! . . . . . . .
,'
,
;
: ': .
. ....................
W24x6
'!!"
W24x6
. . . . . . . !i . . . . . . .
W14x13
i
J
a=3'-7"
i
i
-636k-ff
M, Moment
V, Shear
Figure A. 3. Assumed Bending and Shear Diagram for 4th Floor Girders
The factored shear and bending moment in the connection are shown in the above figure.
The lefi side connection of the joint, which has the largest forces, is designed in this
example. The same connection will be used for the right side of the joint.
Maximum factored shear in the connection: Ru= 64 kips
Maximum factored bending moment in the connection: Mu = 636 kips
No significant axial load exists in the girder.
Factored axial load in the column: Nu= 300 kips (needed for panel zone check).
The bending moment acting on the connection due to service loads (un-factored) obtained
from analysis:
M(service ' conn.)= 242 fi-kips (due to combination of gravity and seismic loads)
The bending moments and shear forces acting on the splice, at a distance of 43 inches ("a"
distance in Figure A. 2) from the centerline of the column are:
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Aptfl 1997
28
qFy
Say O.K.
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tres Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Aprf11997
29
St,ms
.
. . . . . . . [I
nc
o
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
;i
. ;.
ft : : : : : . , ,
r
W14x32.
J
i
e=3'-
: : :
W24x68
a=3..7,'
-._-_-:-_.1_-,
. J[_ s'
, _ L I
W24x68
'l:l.s'
. . . . . . .i
i ' L . ; . i i . . ,
'
!
i
'
14.s'l
I5 . ' T '
6@3---';
1.5"
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Ap/fl 1997 3 0
O.K.
Using a bolt gage of 4.5 inches c/c on the flanges, Figure A.4, provides 2.75 inches of
edge distance for splice plates and girder, large enough to satisfy AISC(1994)
requirements.
12. Check panel zone yielding:
dbdctp ]
Vn = 0.55x50x14.66x0.645[ 14
3x14.725xl.032
23.73x14.66x0.645
Vn= 314 kips < 2(8,550)/23.73= 721.
] =314 kips
results in more
The loads acting on the web plate are shown in the following figure:
J
IJ
Figure A. 5. Loads Acting on the Web Connection
The web plate are subjected to a combination of shear V and bending moment Ve. To
check this failure mode, the following interaction equation is used:
< 1.o
4)Vywp
The web splice bolt group is subjected to an eccentric shear. The shear is equal to 76 kips
and eccentricity is 2 inches, see Figure A. 5. To design the bolts, the tables in Volume II of
the AISC-LRFD Manual (AISC, 1994) are used. The results:
Use 5 7/8' dia A325N bolts
15. Fracture of net area of web plate
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Apf11997
32
V
( (t)(h- Ndh)(O.6F.))2+(ep (O(h2/4-ndh 4 -ndh d2)(Fy))2 < 1.0.
76
2
76x2"
2 0.66 < 1.0 O.K.
(0.75(3/8)(15 - 5xl")(O.6x58)) +(0.75(3/8)(15/4 - l"x2x3 - 1"x2x6 )(58)) =
5948x29,000x23.73
2x20x36
= 2,842,500 kip-inch/radians
5,948(23.73/2)
- 808,000 kip-inch/radians
20x36/29,000 + 1/16"
The above value of rotational stiffness can be modeled into computer analysis program as
stiffness of a rotational spring. Such analysis can result in better calculation of drifts.
Seismic Design of Steel Column-Tree Moment-Resisting Frames by Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Steel Tips, Apn11997
33
Q
SPONSORS
Baresel Corp.
Stockton Steel
The
Corporation
Thei local structural steel industry (above spomors) stands ready to assist you in determining the most
economical solution for your products. Our assistance can range from budget prices and estimated tonnage
to cost comparisons, fabrication details and delivery schedules.
Funding for this publication provided by the California Iron Workers Administrative Trust.