Influence of material strength scattering on the ductile response of steel structures

M. Gndel, B. Hoffmeister & M. Feldmann

Institute for Steel Structures, RWTH Aachen University, Germany

ABSTRACT: In this paper investigations on the influence of material strength scattering on the seismic performance of steel structures are presented. Real material properties obtained directly from the monitoring of European steel producers has shown a significant overstrength for low steel grades, which is not always captured by provisions in EN1998-1. The real material scattering is considered in non-linear time step analyses on reference steel structures either braced by moment resisting or concentrically braced frames. The evaluation of failure criteria shows that local and global deformation behaviour is less depending on material scattering than on random artificial accelerograms. However, connection and foundation forces correlate strongly with the yield stress of adjacent dissipative elements, but are nearly independent to different accelerograms. 1 INTRODUCTION The exploitation of the capability of steel structures to dissipate energy by means of plastic deformations is a common and effective design strategy to achieve a high resistance against exceptional loads like earthquake. The crucial point in this design method is the prediction and control of the formation of plastic mechanisms with regard to their location and to their ultimate resistance combined with the prevention of brittle or other sudden failure modes. To this end so called capacity design rules are applied, where brittle parts of the structure are designed with a sufficient overstrength compared to the plastic limits of ductile members and thus enabling the development of the intended plastic mechanisms. The overstrength used in the capacity design needs to cover the differences between the nominal plastic resistances of members obtained with the nominal values of yield strength and member dimensions and the real resistances which include the influence of strain hardening, cross-sectional dimensions and the actual yield strength of the material. In particular the scattering of the yield strength, which in reality is usually significantly higher than the nominal value, is of high importance. Current European material standards however provide no requirements with regard to a limitation of the upper yield strength values. The contribution presents results from the recently finished research project OPUS founded by RFCS. In this project actual material properties of structural steel were obtained directly from the monitoring of European steel producers. The data were evaluated statistically and used to assess the expected distribution of yield strength in four reference steel buildings. The structures were used to investigate the influence of scattered material strength on their response to seismic actions and on failure modes. 2 MATERIAL STRENGTH 2.1 Production standards The limits for mechanical material properties of structural steel as yield stress, tensile strength and ultimate elongation are defined in the European production standard series EN10025. These standards define depending on the material thickness minimum values for the yield stress and ultimate elongation as well as lower and upper limits for the tensile strength. An upper limit for the yield stress, as given by ISO-DIS24314 (steel grades for seismic application), is not implemented in EN10025. However, the European seismic standard EN1998-1 recommend to consider an factor of 1.25 for material overstrength and a factor of 1.1 for strain hardening in the capacity design. 2.2 Measured material properties In the research project OPUS two European steel producers provided more than 13000 material data sets from three plants including yield stress, tensile strength, ultimate elongation and nominal thickness.

The data were obtained for HE-, IPE- and UPNsections in steel grades S235M, S275M, S355M and S460M produced according to EN10025. The data were grouped according to steel grade and flange thicknesses (3 to 16 mm and 16 to 40 mm). The number of samples in each group was between 60 and 8200. The statistical evaluation of the yield strength led to coefficient of variations (COV) mainly between 0.05 and 0.07. These results are in good agreement with data from literature (Faber et al 2001). The ratio from mean values to nominal value depended strongly on the steel grade: for S235 it was 1.40, for S275 between 1.20 and 1.32, for S355 between 1.12 and 1.28, for S460 between 1.08 and 1.13 (Braconi et al 2009, unpub.). Therefore, for low steel grades already the ratio from mean value to nominal value was significantly higher than the overstrength factor of 1.25 proposed in EN1998-1. The statistical distribution of the yield strength samples can be described sufficiently well by a 2-parameter lognormal distribution. 3 REFERENCE STEEL STRUCTURES 3.1 Procedure The numerical investigations were carried out on four typical multi-storey steel structures with different bracing systems and type of use. In the first step the buildings were designed for ordinary loads according to EN1991 and E1993 using a 3D-model considering dead load, imposed load, wind and snow loads. In the next step the initial design was extended by adopting requirements for moderate seismic loads according to EN1998-1. This design was done by the lateral force method (ag = 0.1, Soil type C, 3 % damping). Finally, non-linear time-step analyses were carried out on 2-D models for probabilistic investigations. 3.2 Office building braced by moment resisting frames (MRF) The first structure was a 5 storey office building with dimensions of 21 x 36 m in plane and a height of 17.5 m (equal storey heights). The concrete floors (without composite action) were designed to provide sufficient diaphragm action. It was braced by moment resisting frames in X-direction and by concentric bracings in Y-direction. The moment resisting frames consisted of HEB400-columns and IPE400beams, both in steel grade S235. The dissipative elements were the horizontal beams and column bases, which were rigidly connected to the foundation. The 2-D non-linear analyses were focused on the moment resisting frames in X-direction. The fundamental period in this direction was T = 1.27 s (Fig. 1).

3.3 Office building braced by concentrically braced frames (CBF) The second structure was of the same geometrical dimensions and the same type of use as the first one, but it was braced by concentric bracings also in Xdirection. The columns were made of HEB340 and the beams IPE400 (hinged), both in steel grade S235. The concentric bracings the dissipative elements - were made of CHS, d = 139.7 mm in S235 with thickness decreasing from t = 12.5 mm in the first storey to t = 4 mm in the fifth storey. The cross section dimensions were selected to fulfil the homogeneous as well as the slenderness criteria according to EN1998-1. The 2-D non-linear analysis was carried out only for the concentrically braced frames in X-direction, where the fundamental period was T = 1.12 s (Fig. 2). 3.4 Industrial building braced by moment resisting frames (MRF) The next structure was a four storey industrial building with dimensions of 22.5 x 30 m in plane and a height of 20 m. The unequally spaced storey heights (first to fourth storey 4 m, 4 m, 5 m and 7 m) and high masses also in upper storeys are typically for industrial buildings. The resistance to lateral loads was provided by moment resisting frames in Xdirection and concentrically braced frames in Ydirection. The moment resisting frame consisted of HEB700-columns and IPE500-beams with exception of the first storey, where IPE550s were used to prevent soft storey failure. The steel grade of all elements was S355. The column bases were designed as hinged connected to the foundation, as transferring the full plastic moment of the large column sections to the foundation was judged as uneconomic. The structure was relatively soft in X-direction resulting in a rather high fundamental period (T = 1.81 s, see Fig. 3). 3.5 Industrial building braced by concentrically braced frames (CBF) The last structure was the same industrial building as in the previous section, but in this example the analysis was focused on the concentrically braced frames in Y-direction. The beams were made of HEA700 in S355 and the columns were still HEB700-sections (bending around the weak axis). The concentric bracings first to fourth storey were made of CHS 244.5x8, 244.5x6 (both in S355), 193.7x10 and 193.7x4 (both in S235). These sections were used to fulfil the slenderness as well as uniformity criteria according to EN1998-1. The fundamental period of the structure in Y-direction was T = 1.01 s (Fig. 4).

4 NONLINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS 4.1 Model and FE-program The influence of material scattering on the seismic performance was investigated by non-linear dynamic analyses. The analyses were carried out using the FE-program DYNACS developed at the Institute for Steel Structures at RWTH Aachen University (Kuck 1993, unpubl.). The structures were modelled in 2-D by fibre beam elements, with increasing element density in dissipative regions of the moment resisting frames (e.g. column feet, beam-column connections). The non-linear material behaviour was considered by a bi-linear model with kinematic hardening described by yield stress, tensile stress and ultimate elongation (Fig. 5). Braces were described by special developed non-linear springs elements, representing the cyclic behaviour including plastification under tension, global buckling under compression and cyclic degradation. The analyses included large deformations to consider the influence of the P--effect.

Figure 1. Reference structure 1 - Office building MRF: fundamental period = 1.27 s.

Figure 2. Reference structure 2 - Office building CBF: fundamental period = 1.12 s.

Figure 5. Real stress strain curve of steel and simplified material law used in the non-linear analyses.

4.2 Ground motion histories In the time step analyses artificial ground motion histories with a p.g.a. of 0.1 g were used, which fulfilled the target spectrum for low seismicity (type 2) and soil type C according to EN 1998-1 (5 % damping). The filter function was defined by a trapezoidal shape, where the time intervals for the initial ramp, strong motion duration and ending ramp are 5 s. The ground motion histories were generated with the software SIMQUE (Gelfi 2006), whereas a baseline correction of the accelerograms was carried out afterwards (see Figs. 6-7).

Figure 3. Reference structure 3 - Industrial building MRF: fundamental period = 1.81 s.

Figure 4. Reference structure 4 - Industrial building CBF: fundamental period = 1.01 s.

2.0 1.5 1.0

a [m/s]

0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 -2.0

Akz 1 Akz 2 Akz 3 Akz 4 Akz 5 Akz 6 Akz 7

- dynamic instability - shear capacity acc. to EN1993-1-1; for ratios higher than 0.5 the moment capacity is reduced correspondingly - global buckling acc. to EN1993-1-1 - lateral torsional buckling of columns acc. to EN1993-1-1 Furthermore, the verification of sections subjected to combined axial and bending forces was considered directly in each time step by using fibre elements with non-linear material behaviour. Global deformation criteria as roof and storey drift according to FEMA356 were only used as indicative criteria. Additionally, maximum connection forces and foundation forces were recorded for further investigations. All verifications were carried out for each structural element with regard to the maximum value during a time history automatically by user-defined Matlab subroutines (Matlab 2010). Only global buckling and lateral torsional buckling were checked separately in the relevant time step of each accelerogram.
Table 1. Seismic failure criteria. ______________________________________________ Criteria limit reference ______________________________________________

t [s]

10

15

Figure 6. 7 artificial accelerograms fulfilling the demand spectra acc. to EN1998-1 for low seismicity and soil type C (5% damping).
0.6
target spectrum accel. 1 accel. 2 accel. 3 accel. 4 accel. 5 accel. 6 accel. 7

0.4

Sa [g]
0.2

0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

T [s]

Figure 7. Elastic response spectra of 7 artificial accelerograms for low seismicity and soil type C (5% damping vs. target spectra acc. to EN1998-1.

Roof drift 2.5% (ind.) FEMA356 Storey drift 2.5% (ind.) FEMA356 Ultimate rotation 6y (limit) EN1998-3 Ultimate def. in compression 4c (limit) EN1998-3 EN1998-3 Ultimate def. in tension 7t (limit) _____________________________________________ y = chord rotation at yielding, for 0.3 < N/Npl < 0.5: y*= y (1 N/Npl) acc. to FEMA350 c = axial deformation of the brace at buckling load t = axial deformation of the brace at tensile yielding load.

4.3 Failure criteria Seismic demand levels are usually defined in relation to performance levels as Damage Limitation, Severe Damage and Near Collapse. The investigations hereafter were carried out for the performance level Severe Damage acc. to EN1998-3, which corresponds to an earthquake hazard level with a medium return period of 475 years. A crucial point in assessing structures by non-linear time-step analysis is the definition of limit states, as they are partly not exactly defined in European seismic standards. The seismic performance of structures can be evaluated by general deformation criteria like roof drift and storey drift or local ductility criteria. Furthermore, non seismic-specific verifications as shear capacity, global buckling, etc. have to be carried out. In this study following limit states were defined as failure criteria (Table 1): - ultimate rotation acc. to EN1998-3 including the limiting effect of axial forces (only MRF) - ultimate deformation in compression acc. to EN1998-3 (only CBF) - ultimate deformation in tension acc. to EN1998-3 (only CBF) 4.4 Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) The seismic performance of all reference structures as well as evaluation of their limit states were investigated for nominal yield stress values. The original accelerograms were multiplied with a gradually increased factor until the dynamic instability of the structure was reached. All structures resisted significantly higher p.g.a. levels than considered in the initial design by the lateral force method. The available q-factors determined on the basis of the IDA are 6.7 for the office building MRF, 5.4 for the office building CBF, 7.0 for the industrial building MRF and 9.2 for the industrial building CBF; all q-factors are related to the acceleration corresponding to the first plastic hinge in the structure. The high resistance can be explained, as many seismic design requirements lead to an overstrength of the structure compared to the resistance required for the applied seismic design load. Such effects are more considerable for structures designed for moderate seismic loads, as these seismic design requirements have to ensure a sufficient performance of structures not only for low seismicity but also for high seismicity with longer strong motion periods.

2 1.5

ultimate rotation ratio [-]

ultimate rotation ratio [-]

(...) accelerogram

2 1.5 1

(2)

(...) accelerogram (6) (2)

(1) (5) (4) (7)

(3)

(6)

1 0.5

(4) (1) (5) (7) (3)

0.5 0 0 5 10 15

0 0 5 10 15

multiplier factor [-]

multiplier factor [-]

Figure 8. Reference structure 1 - Office building MRF: maximum ultimate rotation ratio in the IDAs .
200% 175% 150%

Figure 12. Reference structure 3 - Industrial building MRF: maximum ultimate rotation ratio in the IDAs.
200% 175% 150%

ratio [-]

100% 75% 50% 25% 0%

roof drift storey drift beam rot. column rot. shear force

ratio [-]

125%

125% 100% 75% 50% 25% 0%

roof drift storey drift beam rot. column rot. shear force

Figure 9. Reference structure 1 - Office building MRF: capacity ratio of failure criteria at load factor 10 (mean, maximum and minimum).
ultimate def. ratio [-]
2 1.5 1
(3) (1)

Figure 13. Reference structure 3 - Industrial building MRF: capacity ratio of failure criteria at load factor 8 (mean, maximum and minimum).
ultimate def. ratio [-]
2 1.5
(1) (2)

(...) accelerogram (7)

(6) (4)

(...) accelerogram

(5) (6) (4)

(5)

(2)

1
(7)

0.5 0 0 5 10 15

0.5 0 0 5

(3)

10

15

multiplier factor [-]

multiplier factor [-]

Figure 10. Reference structure 2 - Office building CBF: maximum ultimate tension deformation ratio in the IDAs.

Figure 14. Reference structure 4 - Industrial building CBF: maximum ultimate tension deformation ratio in the IDAs.

200% 175% 150%

~650 %

200% 175% 150%

~700 %

ratio [-]

125% 100% 75% 50% 25% 0%

roof drift storey drift tension def. compr. def. shear force

ratio [-]

125% 100% 75% 50% 25% 0%

roof drift storey drift def. tension compr. def. shear force

Figure 11. Reference structure 2 - Office building CBF: capacity ratio of failure criteria at load factor 7 (mean, maximum and minimum).

Figure 15. Reference structure 4 - Industrial building CBF: capacity ratio of failure criteria at load factor 8 (mean, maximum and minimum).

In structures braced by moment resisting frames the ultimate rotation ratio was the controlling failure criterion (Figs. 8-9 and 12-13). In the office as well as in the industrial building the columns were the critical elements, which was also related to the reduction of ultimate rotation capacity due to axial loads. The scattering of the ultimate rotation ratio between accelerograms was considerably high (80 140 % and 80 130 %). The other failure criteria were not dominant excepting the indicative criterion storey drift. In the buildings braced by concentric bracings the ultimate deformation of the bracings in compression was the governing failure criterion (Figs. 11 and 15). However, the ultimate deformation ratio of braces in compression according to EN1998-3 is questionable. The deformation of braces in tension and compression is approximately identical, but the ultimate deformation capacity in compression is always lower than in tension. The first one is defined as 4 times the axial deformation at buckling load and the second one is defined as 7 times the axial deformation at tensile yielding load. Strict application of this failure criterion may prevent plastifications of slender braces in tension, which are still in the bandwidth of the slenderness criterion of EN1998-1. Therefore, in the following the investigations were focused on the deformation in tension criterion. The capacity ratios of the other failure criteria were rather low. The scattering of the results between different accelerograms was lower than for the MRF, especially for the industrial building. 5 RESULTS OF CRUDE MONTE-CARLOSIMLUATION 5.1 Procedure Following the IDA, the influence of material scattering on the seismic performance was investigated. The analyses were carried out with accelerograms multiplied by the load factor, at which the first failure criterion was reached in the IDA applying nominal material properties (see previous section). The deformation limits (ultimate rotation and ultimate deformation in tension and compression) were assessed with the nominal yield stress and were kept unchanged. The samples of the material properties (yield stress, tensile stress and ultimate elongation) were generated on the basis of the monitored data in section 2.2. The material properties between different structural elements were assumed as uncorrelated excepting members representing columns as they were assumed as continues structural elements from storey 1 to 3. For each structure 5000 samples with different material properties were generated and investigated in non-linear time-step analyses with 7 different accelerograms.

5.2 Buildings braced by moment resisting frames In the analyses of MRF-structures the scattering of deformation parameters as roof drift and element rotation for different material samples was moderate (COV = 0.03 to 0.07). The scattering between different accelerograms were obviously predominant (COV = 0.16 and 0.17, Fig. 17 and 21), which has already been stated by other authors (e.g. Kook 1994). As ultimate rotation was the dominant failure criterion (see previous section), the failure probability of the structures seems to be nearly independent from material scattering. Furthermore, local rotations of beams and columns did not correlate with the roof drift (Fig. 16), which is an indication for a significant influence of higher modes. In contrast to this observation connection and foundation forces were highly correlated with the yield stress of the adjacent dissipative element (Fig. 18). The differences between particular accelerograms were however very small. 5.3 Buildings braced by concentrically braced frames Similar results were also obtained for concentrically braced frames. The scattering of global and local deformation parameters for different material samples within one accelerogram was significant lower than the scattering between different accelerograms. Furthermore, higher mode effects were clearly visible, as deformation of the braces correlates less with the roof drift. Again the deformation of the braces was less dependent to the material scattering; therefore, also the failure probability of CBF structures seems to be less dependent to material scattering. The evaluation of connection and foundation forces adjacent to bracings (dissipative elements) show similar tendencies as for the MRF: correlation to the actual yield strength and low scattering between different accelerograms. However, especially for the office building the scattering was higher.
0.015

rotation [rad]

0.014 0.013 0.012 0.011 0.010 0.22

0.24

0.26

0.28

roof drift [m]

Figure 16. Reference structure 1 - Office building MRF: column base rotation over roof drift for accelerogram 1.

Figure 17. Structure 1 - Office building MRF: Box plot of column foot rotation 1st storey (multiplier 10).
500

Figure 21. Structure 3 - Industrial building MRF: Box plot of column head rotation 1st storey (multiplier 8).
1500

moment [kNm]

450 400 350 300 250

moment [kNm]
300 350 400

1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 350

400

450

500

550

yield stress [MPa]

Figure 18. Structure 1 - Office building MRF: maximum moment at joint vs. yield stress (beams 2nd storey, multiplier 10).

yield stress [MPa]

Figure 22. Structure 3 - Industrial building MRF: maximum moment at joint vs. yield stress (beams 2nd storey, multip. 8).

Figure 19. Structure 2 - Office building CBF: Box plot of tension deformation braces 3rd storey (multiplier 7).
2300

Figure 23. Structure 4 - Industrial building CBF: Box plot of tension deformation braces 4th storey (multiplier 8).
3500

axial force [kN]

1900 1700 1500 1300 250

axial force [kN]

300 350 400

2100

3300 3100 2900 2700 2500 2300 350

yield stress [MPa]

Figure 20. Reference structure 2 - Office building CBF: maximum tension force at joint vs. yield stress, (braces 3rd storey, multiplier 7).

400

450

500

550

yield stress [MPa]

Figure 24. Structure 4 - Industrial building CBF: maximum tension force at joint vs. yield stress (braces 3rd storey, multiplier 8)

6 CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS 6.1 Results In this study the influence of material scattering on the seismic performance of steel structures was investigated via non-linear time step analyses. Based on the results of four reference structures - office and industrial building braced by MRF and CBF following conclusions are made: - The global and local deformation behaviour of the investigated steel structures is less dependent on material scattering. - The scattering of global and local deformation behaviour of the structure due to different accelerograms is predominant. - Connection and foundation forces correlate strongly with the yield stress of adjacent dissipative elements, but they are nearly independent to the scattering of the seismic action. 6.2 Outlook In the performed investigations the ultimate rotation capacity and the ultimate deformation capacity are assumed as constant. However, there are experimental and analytical results, which show a negative correlation between deformation capacity and material strength (e.g. Feldmann 1994). Even if the material properties correlate less with the deformation behaviour, the material strength may influence the deformation capacity. If the deformation capacity is negative correlated with the material strength, real material properties increase the failure probability in relation to nominal material strength. The statistical evaluation of real material data in section 2.2 has clearly shown that the mean values of steel strength are significant higher than the nominal values. Under consideration of the strong correlation between the material strength of dissipative elements and forces in adjacent connections and foundations, non-ductile joints have to be designed with an enormous overstrength to fulfil capacity design rules. However, in the current model the connection forces are only evaluated as demand measure and the inherent existing overstrength of the joint itself is not considered. To determine a realistic and economic overstrength factor for connections also the real scattering of joint capacities has to be determined and considered. On the basis of 5000 non-linear time step analyses for each structure with different material samples some general conclusions can be made on the failure probability. However, to determine the influence of different parameters on the absolute failure probability, the number of samples shall be increased. As non-linear time step analysis even with efficient software and strong computers are still time consum-

ing (5 to 10 min for each sample), crude Monte Carlo simulations are still not applicable. Hence, further investigations will be carried out with more efficient probabilistic methods. Investigations in (Whaarts 2002) have shown that combining directional sampling with adaptive response surface methods (Directional Adaptive Response surface Sampling, DARS) provide a robust and efficient approach. Therefore, DARS will be implemented in the open source reliability platform FERUM 4.0 to carry out further investigations (Bourinet 2009). ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The research leading to these results has received funding from the Research Program of the Research Fund for Coal and Steel RFSR-CT-2007-00039. REFERENCE
Bourinet, J.-M. 2009. FERUM 4.0 Users Guide Braconi, A. et al 2009. Optimizing the seismic performance of steel and steelconcrete structures by standardizing material quality control, Midterm report (unpublished). Grant agree number RFSR-CT-2007-00039 Faber, H.M. et al 2001. JCSS Probabilistic Model Code. Joint Committee on Structural Safety. www.jcss.ethz.ch. Feldmann, M. 1994. Zur Rotationskapazitt von I-Profilen statisch und dynamisch belasteter Trger. PhD-thesis. Series at Institute for Steel Structures at RWTH Aachen University Volume 30 Feldmann, M., Schfer, D. and Eichler, B. 2009. Vorhersage duktilen Festigkeitsversagens von Stahlbauteilen mit Hilfe schdigungsmechanischer Methoden. Stahlbau, 78: 784 794. doi: 10.1002/stab.200910094 Gelfi, P. 2006. User Manual - SIMQKE_GR Version 1.2. Kook, S. K. 1994. Beitrag zur Definition der Bauwerksregularitt und zur Bestimmung der Verhaltensbeiwerte fr die Erdbebenbemessung von Stahlbauten. PhD-thesis. Series at Institute for Steel Structures at RWTH Aachen University Volume 27. Kuck, J., Hoffmeister, B. 1993. User manual for DYNACS - A Program for DYnamic Nonlinear Analysis of Composite and Steel structures (unpublished). Matlab 2010. User Manual Matlab 2010a. Version 7.10.0.499 Whaarts, P. H. 2000. Structural reliability using Finite Element Analysis An appraisal of DARS: Directional Adaptive Response surface Sampling. PhD-thesis. Delft University Press, Delft.