7 Steel - SCBF - Design PDF

Seismic Design of Structures Fall 2015 - Shiraz University of Technology
CE 4111
Seismic Design
of Structures
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Shiraz University of Technology
S.M. Dehghan
Fall 2015
Steel Seismic
Force Resisting
Systems
Dr. Dehghan 1
Steel SFRS
Steel Seismic Force Resisting Systems will be
covered in Five Parts:
1. Ductile Design / Structural Steel
2. General Requirements
3. Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF)
4. Special Concentrically Braced Frame (SCBF)
A. Behavior
B. Design
5. Eccentrically Braced Frame (EBF)
Steel Seismic
Load Resisting
Systems
Concentrically
Braced Frames
- Design
Dr. Dehghan 2
Concentrically
Braced Frames
Outline
Topics
• Description and Types of
Concentrically Braced
Frames
• Basic Behavior of
Concentrically Braced
Frames
• AISC Seismic Provisions

for Special Concentrically
Braced Frames (SCBF)
Dr. Dehghan 3
References
• ASCE 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures
• AISC 360-10, Specification for Structural
Steel Buildings
• AISC 341-10, Seismic Provisions for
Structural Steel Buildings
• NIST GCR13-917-24 Seismic Design of
Steel special Concentrically Braced Frame
Concentrically
Braced Frames
AISC Seismic
Provisions
Dr. Dehghan 4
AISC Seismic Provisions

• AISC 341-10
▫ Chapter F Braced-Frame and Shear-Wall Systems

• F1. Ordinary Concentrically Braced Frames (OCBF)
o Have a low R-factor: R=3.25 for OCBF
• F2. Special Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBF)
o Have a moderate R-factor: R=6 for SCBF
• F3. Eccentrically Braced Frames (EBF)
o Have the highest R-factor: R=8 for SMF
• F4. Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames (BRBF)
o Have the highest R-factor: R=8 for BRBF
• F5. Special Plate Shear Walls (SPSW)
o Have a high R-factor: R=7 for SPSW
10

• Section F2
1. Scope
2. Basis of Design
3. Analysis
4. System Requirements
4a. Lateral Force Distribution
4b. V- and Inverted V-Braced Frames
4c. K-Braced Frames
4d. Tension-Only Frames
Dr. Dehghan 5
11

• Section F2
5. Members
5a. Basic Requirements
5b. Diagonal Braces
5c. Protected Zones
6. Connections
6a. Demand Critical Welds
6b. Beam-to-Column Connections
6c. Required Strength of Brace Connections
6d. Column Splices
12
SCBF Seismic Provisions

• F2.1 Scope
▫ SCBF are a type of braced frames in which the centerline

of members that meet at a joint intersect at a point,
forming a vertical truss system
 CBFs provide complete truss action with members subjected
primarily to axial loads in the elastic range
 During a moderate to severe earthquake, bracing members
and connections are expected to undergo significant inelastic
deformations into the post-buckling range
Dr. Dehghan 6
13

• F2.1 Scope
▫ Common types of CBFs are
 diagonally braced
 X-braced
 V-braced
(or inverted V-braced)
14

• F2.2 Design Basis
▫ SCBF are distinguished from OCBF (with R = 3) by

requirements for ductility
Dr. Dehghan 7
15

• F2.2 Design Basis
▫ During a severe earthquake, bracing members in a CBF
frame are subjected to large deformations in cyclic
tension and compression
 In the compression direction flexural buckling causes the
formation of flexural plastic hinges in the brace
 Braces in a typical CBF frame can be expected to yield and buckle at
rather moderate story drifts of about 0.3% to 0.5%
 In a severe earthquake, the braces could undergo post-buckling
axial deformations 10 to 20 times their yield deformation
 In order to survive such large cyclic deformations without
premature failure, the bracing members and their connections must
be properly detailed
16

• F2.3 Analysis
Dr. Dehghan 8
17

• F2.3 Analysis
18

• F2.3 Analysis
▫ SCBF are typically designed based on an elastic analysis

▫ Expected behavior includes significant nonlinearity due to
brace buckling and yielding, which is anticipated in MCE
▫ Braced-frame system ductility can only be achieved if
beams and column buckling can be prevented
Dr. Dehghan 9
19

• F2.3 Analysis
▫ There is a need to supplement the elastic analysis in
order to have an adequate design
 The required strength of braces is typically determined
based on the analysis required by ASCE 7
 The analysis required by this section is used in determining
the required strength of braced-frame beams and columns,
and brace connections
▫ In AISC 341-10 explicit consideration of the inelastic
behavior by requiring a plastic-mechanism analysis
 It is naturally desirable that engineers performing analyses
of ductile systems give some thought to the manner in which
they will behave
20

• F2.3 Analysis
▫ The first-mode of deformation is considered
when determining if a brace is in tension or
in compression
 the columns are considered to be inclined
in one direction
 consideration must also be given to the
behavior when the columns slope the
opposite direction
▫ Expected Brace Strength
 Tension Pet = Ry Fy Ag
 Compression Pec = min (Ry Fy Ag and 1.14 Fcr Ag)
Use Ry Fy for computing Fcr per Chapter E of Specification
 Post-Buckling Peresid = 0.3 Pec
Dr. Dehghan 10
21

• Specification –
E3 Flexural
Buckling of
Members
▫ Nominal
Compressive
Strength Pn
 Note use Ry Fy
for computing Fcr
22

• F2.4 System Requirements
• F2.4a Lateral Force Distribution
Dr. Dehghan 11
23

• F2.4a Lateral Force Distribution
▫ This provision attempts to balance the tensile and
compressive resistance across the width of the building
 the buckling and post-buckling strength of the bracing
members in compression can be substantially less than tension
 good balance helps prevent the accumulation of inelastic
drifts in one direction
▫ Ideally, the braces should be arranged so that about half
of the applied lateral load is resisted by tension braces,
for either direction of loading on the frame
NG OK
All braces in tension (or compression)
24

• F2.4b V and inverted V-Braced Frames
▫ V-braced and inverted V-braced (chevron) frames

exhibit a special problem
 The expected behavior of SCBF is that an unbalanced
vertical force must be resisted by the intersected beam
Dr. Dehghan 12
25

▫ The effect of this unbalanced load can be mitigated by
using V- and inverted V-braces in alternate stories
(creating an X-brace over two story)
▫ Adequate lateral bracing at the brace-beam is necessary
in order to prevent possible LTB of the beam
▫ The stability of this connection is influenced by the
flexural and axial forces in the beam, and any torsion
imposed by brace buckling or post-buckling
26

▫ To avoid hinge formation in the beam, and
to avoid the potential for a soft story,
the beam must be designed to resist the
unbalanced forces from the braces
▫ Design beams for unbalanced load that
will occur when compression brace buckles
and tension brace yields
 Take force in tension brace R y Fy A g
 Take force in compression brace 0.3 Pec
▫ Assume beam has no vertical support
between columns
Dr. Dehghan 13
27

▫ The design forces for the beam includes
 the gravity load on the beam L
 the unbalanced brace forces
wgravity = (1.2 + 0.2 SDS) D + 0.5L
wgravity = (1.2 + 0.2 SDS) D + 0.5L

( Ry Fy Ag + 0.3 Pec ) cos 
( Ry Fy Ag - 0.3 Pec ) sin 
 0.3 Pec • Unbalanced vertical force on the beam
Ry Fy Ag produces bending and shear in the beam
• Unbalanced horizontal force on the beam
simple framing produces axial force in the beam
• The beam must be designed as a member
under combined axial force and bending
• These large unbalanced brace forces will
often result in very heavy beams
28

• D1.2a Moderately Ductile Members
Dr. Dehghan 14
29

• D1.2a Moderately Ductile
Members
▫ Examples of lateral braces
in an inverted V-brace
30

• F2.4c K-Braced Frames
▫ K-bracing is generally not considered desirable in CBFs

 is prohibited entirely for SCBF because
 it is considered undesirable to have columns that are
subjected to unbalanced lateral forces from the braces
 these forces may contribute to column failures
K-Type Braces are not

Permitted for SCBF
Dr. Dehghan 15
31

• F2.4c K-Braced Frames
• F2.4d Tension Only Braces
▫ SCBF provisions have not been developed for use with

braces that only act in tension
 tension-only braced frames are not allowed for SCBF
 tension-only bracing is allowed for OCBF
32

• F2.5 Members
• F2.5a Basic Requirements
▫ This is to assure that these members can develop their

plastic flexural strength, and maintain this strength
through large inelastic deformations without excessive
strength loss due to local buckling
Dr. Dehghan 16
33

▫ An elastic analysis of a braced frame shows
 that the columns and braces only carry axial force
 so flexural strength and ductility are not necessary in the
elastic range
▫ When a braced frame goes inelastic in an earthquake
 the columns and braces may see very large bending moments,
 so flexural strength and ductility become important
▫ The flexural strength and rotation capacity of the column
has been shown to be a significant contributor to the
stability of SCBF
▫ It has also been demonstrated that SCBF can be subject
to significant story drift, requiring columns to undergo
inelastic rotation
34

▫ This slide shows why the
columns may see significant
bending after braces buckle
▫ The column moments are not
usually explicitly considered
in the design of an SCBF
 the requirement for
seismically compact columns is
intended to help allow columns
to carry large moments in an
earthquake
Dr. Dehghan 17
35

▫ Braces will form a plastic flexural hinge in the post-
buckling condition, due to P-Δ moments in the member
 brace members with high b/t ratios will suffer local buckling
at these hinge locations
 high localized strains in the local buckle regions, may result
in fracture of the brace member after just a few cycles of
loading
plastic hinge
▫ The requirement for seismically
compact brace members is Δ
P
intended to delay the
local buckling, and delay
fracture of the brace at the hinge region
36

• F2.5a Basic Requirements • Photo shows a laboratory cyclic
loading test on a braced frame with
HSS section
• Note the plastic flexural hinge that
has formed at mid-span of the brace
and the local buckle that has formed
Dr. Dehghan 18
37

• Photo was taken in a braced frame building following the Northridge Earthquake
• The braces were constructed using HSS members
• Photo shows a local buckle in the brace, that resulted in fracture of the brace
• The brace has suffered local buckling at the mid-span hinge which then caused
fracture
38

• F2.5b Diagonal Braces
Dr. Dehghan 19
39

▫ The slenderness (KL/r) limit is 200 for braces in SCBF
▫ An upper limit is provided to prevent dynamic effects
associated with extremely slender braces
▫ Closer spacing of stitches and higher stitch strength
requirements are specified for built-up bracing members
in SCBF than those required for typical built-up members
 this is critical for double-angle and double-channel braces
that impose large shear forces on the stitches upon buckling
 this is intended to restrict individual element bending
between the stitch points and premature fracture of bracing
▫ Bolted stitches are not permitted within the middle
one-fourth of the clear brace length due to formation of
plastic hinge
40

▫ The required strength of bracing members with respect

to the limit state of net section rupture is the expected
brace strength
▫ It should be noted that some steel materials used for
braces have expected yield strengths significantly higher
than their specified minimum yield strengths
Dr. Dehghan 20
41

▫ A basic goal of SCBF detailing is that tension yielding of
the brace gross-sectional area will occur prior to the
occurrence of fracture limit states in the brace
▫ At the end connections of a brace member, the effective
net area of the member is usually less the gross area
 the reduction in effective cross-sectional area can result
from holes in the members (bolts holes or holes made to
facilitate welding) and can also result from shear lag
▫ Reductions of cross-sectional area can occur along the
length of the member if holes are made in the member
▫ Although not explicitly stated, this requirement should
also be satisfied when checking block shear failure in the
bracing member
42

• The bracing members have fractured at

bolted connections
• The effective cross-sectional area is reduced
by bolt holes and by shear lag
Dr. Dehghan 21
43

▫ Example - Check double angle bracing member for limit
state of net section fracture
gusset plate
double angle bracing member
44

▫ Example
Pu= Ry Fy Ag
• Critical Net Section

Ae = U An
• Required axial tension
Ae < Ag
strength of brace for limit
• Bolt hole
state of fracture of the net
An < Ag
section
• Shear lag
U<1
Dr. Dehghan 22
45

▫ Example
Pu= Ry Fy Ag Pu= Ry Fy Ag
• Having no reduction in the

• Limit state of fracture of net section section is deemed sufficient
to ensure this behavior
φ Pn = φ Ae (Rt Fu) Ae ≥ Ag
φ = 0.75 (0.75) Ae (Rt Fu) ≥ Ry Fy Ag
46

▫ Example
• Calculations show that the

effective net area Ae must
exceed the gross area Ag
• Ae ≥ Ag
• For A36 Angles
Ae 1.5  250 MPa
  1.04
Ag 0.75 1.2  400 MPa
Dr. Dehghan 23
47

▫ Example - Check block shear rupture of bracing member
Pu= Ry Fy Ag
• Design strength of the brace member

based on a limit state of block shear
rupture should also equal or exceed
the required strength computed
0.6 Anv Rt Fu
 Pn = (0.75) Ubs Ant Rt Fu + lesser of
0.6 Agv Ry Fy
48

▫ Reinforcing net section of bracing member
• Satisfying Ae ≥ Ag, will generally require

reinforcing of the brace member so that
its effective net area is at least equal to
its gross area
• This slide shows how the net section of
the angles might be increased by welding
reinforcing plates to the angles
Dr. Dehghan 24
49

▫ Example - HSS bracing member for limit state of net
section fracture
gusset plate rectangular HSS bracing member
• The end of member is

slotted, and then
welded to a gusset
plate along the slot
edges.
• The slot is made
longer than needed, to
facilitate fit-up in the
field
50

▫ Example
• Some examples of slotted

HSS brace connections to
gusset plates
Dr. Dehghan 25
51

▫ Reinforcing net section of bracing member
• This slide shows how

the net section of the
HSS might be increased
by welding reinforcing
plates to the angles
52

• F2.5c Panel Zones
▫ Welded or shot-in attachments in areas of inelastic

strain may lead to fracture
▫ Such areas in SCBF include gusset plates and expected
plastic-hinge regions in the brace
▫ Note that for the X-braced frame, the half-length of
the brace is used and a plastic hinge is anticipated at any
of the brace quarter points
Dr. Dehghan 26
53

54

Dr. Dehghan 27
55

• F2.6 Connections
• F2.6a Demand Critical Welds
56

• F2.6a Demand Critical Welds
▫ Groove welds at column splices are designated as demand
critical for several reasons
 the consequences of a brittle failure at a column splice are
not clearly understood, may endanger safety of the frame
 the actual forces that will occur at a column splice during an
earthquake are very difficult to predict
 the locations of points of inflection in the columns during an
earthquake are constantly moving
▫ In order to provide a high degree of protection against
brittle failure at column splice groove welds, the use of
demand critical welds is specified
Dr. Dehghan 28
57

• F2.6b Beam-to-Column Connections
▫ Braced frames are likely to be subject to significant

inelastic drift
 their connections will undergo significant rotation
 connections with gusset plates can be vulnerable to rupture
if they are not designed to accommodate this rotation
58

▫ The provision allows engineer to select from two options
 the first is a simple connection for which the required
rotation is defined as 0.025 rad
• An example of a
configuration tested
that effectively
allowed rotation
between the beam and
column
Dr. Dehghan 29
59

 the first is a simple connection for which the required
rotation is defined as 0.025 rad
• A connection with
rotation capacity
outside the gusset
plate
60

Dr. Dehghan 30
61


 the second option is a fully restrained moment connection
 for which the maximum moment can be determined from the
expected strength of the connecting beam or column
▫ Such connections must meet the same requirements for
beam-to-column connections in ordinary moment frames,
as specified in Section E1.6
62

• Specification - B3.6 Design of Connections
▫ Connection Classification
 The basic assumption made in classifying connections is that
the most important behavioral characteristics of the
connection can be modeled by a moment-rotation (M-θ) curve
▫ Implicit in the moment-rotation curve is the definition of
the connection as being a region of the column and beam
along with the connecting elements
▫ The connection response is defined this way because the
rotation of the member in a physical test is generally
measured over a length that incorporates the
contributions of not only the connecting elements, but
also the ends of the members being connected and the
column panel zone
Dr. Dehghan 31
63

▫ Connection Stiffness
 The initial stiffness of the connection does not adequately
characterize connection response at service levels
 The secant stiffness, KS,
at service loads is taken
as an index property of
connection stiffness
 where
MS = moment at service loads
θS = rotation at service loads
64

▫ If KSL/EI ≥ 20, it is acceptable to consider the
connection to be fully restrained FR
 in other words, able to maintain the angles between members
▫ If KSL/EI ≤ 2, it is acceptable to consider the connection
to be simple
 in other words, it rotates without developing moment
▫ Connections with stiffness between these two limits are
partially restrained PR and the stiffness, strength and
ductility of the connection must be considered in the
design
Dr. Dehghan 32
65

66

• F2.6c Required Strength of Brace Connections
▫ Many of the failures reported in CBFs due to strong

ground motions have been in the connections
 cyclic testing of specimens designed and detailed in
accordance with typical provisions for concentrically braced
frames has produced connection failures
 typical design practice, design connections only for axial loads
 good connection performance can be expected if the effects
of brace member cyclic post-buckling behavior are considered
Dr. Dehghan 33
67

• F2.6c Required Strength of Brace Connections
▫ Certain references suggest limiting the free edge length

of gusset plates
▫ The committee has reviewed the testing cited and has
concluded that such edge stiffeners do not offer any
advantages in gusset plate behavior
▫ There is therefore no limitation on edge dimensions in
these provisions
68

• F2.6c(1) Required Tensile Strength
▫ The brace connection should be stronger than the brace

▫ Note that using the amplified seismic load is not an
acceptable method to establish the maximum load effect
▫ In general, the braces in an SCBF can be expected to
yield in an earthquake, and so the brace connection must
be designed for the expected yield strength of the brace
Dr. Dehghan 34
69

▫ There are a number of ways one can determine the
maximum force transferred to the connection, include
1. Perform a pushover analysis to determine the forces
acting on the connections when the maximum frame
capacity (collapse mechanism) is reached
2. Determine how much force can be resisted before causing
uplift of a spread footing (note that the foundation design
forces are not required to resist more than the code base
shear level)
3. Perform a suite of inelastic time history analyses and
envelop the connection demands
70

▫ Required axial tensile strength of the brace connection
Ry Fy Ag
Dr. Dehghan 35
71

▫ Consider load path through connection region
• When designing the brace
Pu = Ry Fy Ag connection, it is important to
consider the load path through
the connection
• This is important not only for
seismic design, but also when
 designing brace connections for
any other type of load like wind
• For the arrangement shown,
o the horizontal component of
Pu cos  the brace force must be
transferred to the beam
o the vertical component must
Pu sin  be transferred to the column
72

▫ Uniform Force Method • There are many methods for
approaching brace connection design
• One of the more common methods is
Pu = Ry Fy Ag
the Uniform Force Method
• This slide shows the load path for
transferring the vertical component
Vuc of the brace force to the column
Vub o A portion of the vertical
component (Vuc) of brace force is

transferred directly to the column
Vub through the gusset plate
Pu cos  o The remaining portion of the
vertical component (Vub) of brace

Vuc + Vub = Pu sin  force is transferred to the beam,
and then from the beam to the
Pu sin 
column
Dr. Dehghan 36
73

▫ Uniform Force Method
• This slide shows the load path for
transferring the horizontal
Pu = Ry Fy Ag
component of the brace force to the
beam, as defined by the Uniform
Force Method
Huc o A portion of the horizontal
component (Hub) of the brace force

Hub is transferred directly to the
beam through the gusset plate
Huc
o The remaining portion of the
Pu cos  horizontal component (Huc) of the
brace force is transferred to the
Huc + Hub = Pu cos  column, and then from the column
to the beam
Pu sin 
74

▫ Bolts and welds shall not be designed to share force in a
joint, or the same force component in a connection (D2.2)
• A portion of the vertical component of the
Pu = Ry Fy Ag brace force is transferred to the column
by the gusset to column welds, and the
remainder is transferred to the column
through the bolted beam end connection
• Bolts and welds must share same force
component, which is prohibited by D2.2
• A portion of the horizontal component of
the brace force is transferred to the
beam by the gusset to beam welds, and
Pu cos  the remainder is transferred to the beam
through the bolted beam end connection
• Bolts and welds again share same force
Pu sin  component, which is prohibited by D2.2
Dr. Dehghan 37
75

• F2.6c(2) Required Compressive Strength
▫ Bracing connections should be designed to withstand the

maximum force that the brace can deliver in compression
 a factor of 1.1 has been adopted here due to the use of
conservative column curve equations = 1.1 Pec
▫ Expected brace strength in compression in F2.3
Pec = min (Ry Fy Ag and 1.14 Fcr Ag)
▫ Use RyFy for computing Fcr per Chapter E of Specification
76

▫ Required axial compression strength of brace connection
1.1 Pec
Dr. Dehghan 38
77

▫ Required axial compression strength of brace connection
• The required axial compression strength is
intended to assure that the brace
1.1 Pec connection is stronger then the brace in
compression
• The required axial compression strength is
used to check limit states such as
o buckling of the gusset plate,
o web crippling of the beam and column
• The gusset will often result in a large

unsupported length that may be prone to
buckling when the brace is in compression
• Gusset buckling is often checked by
assuming the unsupported segment of
gusset behaves as a column
78

▫ Examples of brace connection
elements have buckled
• Photos of steel braced frame buildings
following the 1995 Kobe Earthquake
Dr. Dehghan 39
79

• F2.6c(3) Accommodation of Brace Buckling
80

▫ Braces in SCBF are expected to undergo cyclic buckling
under severe ground motions, forming plastic hinges at
their center and at each end
Plastic Hinges
▫ To prevent fracture resulting from brace rotations

 bracing connections must either have sufficient strength to
confine inelastic rotation to the bracing member
 sufficient ductility to accommodate brace end rotations
Dr. Dehghan 40
81

▫ Fixed End braces
▫ Connections with stiffness in two directions can be
designed and detailed
 test results indicate that forcing the plastic hinge to occur in
the brace rather than the connection plate results in greater
energy dissipation capacity
 brace will impose bending moment on connections and
adjoining members
Plastic Hinges
Mu = 1.1 Ry Mp = 1.1 Ry Fy Zbrace
(for critical buckling direction)
M M
82

• Photos of buckled braced frame • An example of braced frame
in the 1995 Kobe Earthquake with heavy wide-flange braces
• The deformed shape of buckled • The end connections appear to
brace indicates large bending provide a high degree of
moments that were generated rotational restraint
1.1 Ry Mp-brace
Dr. Dehghan 41
83

▫ Where fixed end connections are used in one axis with
pinned connections in the other axis, the effect of the
fixity should be considered in determining the critical
buckling axis
▫ For brace buckling in the plane of the gusset plates
 the end connections should be designed to resist the
expected compressive strength and the expected flexural
strength of the brace
 note that a realistic value of K should be used to represent
the connection fixity
▫ For brace buckling out of the plane of the gusset plate
 weak-axis rotation in the gusset is provided (pinned)
▫ Satisfactory performance can be ensured by allowing the
gusset plate to develop restraint-free plastic rotations
84

▫ Pinned End braces
▫ Flexural plastic hinge will form at mid-length only
 Brace will impose no bending moment on connections and
adjoining members
 must design brace connection to behave like a pin
P P
Plastic Hinge
P P
Dr. Dehghan 42
85

▫ Providing Fold Line Buckling perpendicular
 The most common strategy to gussetto
plate
provide rotational flexibility
at the brace connection is the
fold line concept
 Rotation of the brace end is
permitted by allowing a line of
rotation (the fold line) in the
gusset plate
Line of rotation (fold line) when
the brace buckles out-of-plane
(thin direction of plate)
86

▫ Providing Fold Line
 The distance of 2t should be considered the minimum offset
 In practice, it may be advisable to specify larger distance
(2t + 20 mm) for erection tolerance
2t
2t
A brace with a shallow

A brace with a steep
angle with the beam
angle with the beam
Dr. Dehghan 43
87

▫ Providing Fold Line
 If a concrete floor slab is present, then the fold line must be
located so that the slab does not interfere with out-of-plane
bending of the gusset along the fold line
Concrete Concrete
2t floor slab 2t floor slab
Styrofoam
88

▫ Examples of brace connections which are not provided
with a fold line
If these braces buckle out-of-plane, the brace end
rotations will likely tear apart the connections
Dr. Dehghan 44
89

▫ Example of brace connections which are not provided
with a fold line
• This photo is a braced frame building in 1994 Northridge Earthquake
• When this brace buckled out-of-plane, the absence of rotational
flexibility in the connection caused the brace end to fracture
90

▫ Examples of brace connections detailed with fold lines
• A laboratory cyclic loading test on a braced frame with HSS braces
• The HSS brace has buckled out-of-plane detailed with a fold line
• The gusset plate behaved as a pin" for out-of-plane buckling, and
permitted the buckling to occur without damage to the connection
Dr. Dehghan 45
91

>
2t
92

>2t
Dr. Dehghan 46
93

• F2.6d Column Splices
94

• F2.6d Column Splices
▫ In the event of a major earthquake, columns in CBFs
undergo significant bending beyond the elastic range
after buckling and yielding of the braces
 Columns in SCBF are required to have adequate compactness
and shear and flexural strength in order to maintain their
lateral strength during large cyclic deformations
▫ In addition, column splices are required to have sufficient
strength to prevent failure under expected post-elastic
forces
▫ Analytical studies on SCBF that are not part of a dual
system have shown that columns can carry as much as
40% of the story shear
Dr. Dehghan 47

7 Steel - SCBF - Design PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

7 Steel - SCBF - Design PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Seismic Design of Structures Fall 2015 - Shiraz University of Technology

• AISC Seismic Provisions

AISC Seismic Provisions

▫ Chapter F Braced-Frame and Shear-Wall Systems

AISC Seismic Provisions

AISC Seismic Provisions

SCBF Seismic Provisions

▫ SCBF are a type of braced frames in which the centerline

SCBF Seismic Provisions

SCBF Seismic Provisions

▫ SCBF are distinguished from OCBF (with R = 3) by

SCBF Seismic Provisions

SCBF Seismic Provisions

SCBF Seismic Provisions

SCBF Seismic Provisions

▫ SCBF are typically designed based on an elastic analysis

SCBF Seismic Provisions

SCBF Seismic Provisions

SCBF Seismic Provisions

SCBF Seismic Provisions

SCBF Seismic Provisions

All braces in tension (or compression)

SCBF Seismic Provisions

▫ V-braced and inverted V-braced (chevron) frames

SCBF Seismic Provisions

SCBF Seismic Provisions

SCBF Seismic Provisions

wgravity = (1.2 + 0.2 SDS) D + 0.5L

SCBF Seismic Provisions

SCBF Seismic Provisions

SCBF Seismic Provisions

▫ K-bracing is generally not considered desirable in CBFs

K-Type Braces are not

SCBF Seismic Provisions

▫ SCBF provisions have not been developed for use with

SCBF Seismic Provisions

▫ This is to assure that these members can develop their

SCBF Seismic Provisions

SCBF Seismic Provisions

SCBF Seismic Provisions

SCBF Seismic Provisions

SCBF Seismic Provisions

SCBF Seismic Provisions

SCBF Seismic Provisions

SCBF Seismic Provisions

▫ The required strength of bracing members with respect

SCBF Seismic Provisions

SCBF Seismic Provisions

• The bracing members have fractured at

SCBF Seismic Provisions

SCBF Seismic Provisions

• Critical Net Section

SCBF Seismic Provisions

• Having no reduction in the

SCBF Seismic Provisions

• Calculations show that the

SCBF Seismic Provisions

• Design strength of the brace member

SCBF Seismic Provisions

• Satisfying Ae ≥ Ag, will generally require

SCBF Seismic Provisions

• The end of member is