Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 16

International Journal of Steel Structures

March 2014, Vol 14, No 1, 43-58 DOI 10.1007/s13296-014-1006-4

International Journal of Steel Structures March 2014, Vol 14, No 1, 43-58 DOI 10.1007/s13296-014-1006-4 www.springer.com/journal/13296 Steel
International Journal of Steel Structures March 2014, Vol 14, No 1, 43-58 DOI 10.1007/s13296-014-1006-4 www.springer.com/journal/13296 Steel

www.springer.com/journal/13296

Steel Concentrically Braced Frames using Tubular Structural Sections as Bracing Members:

Design, Full-Scale Testing and Numerical Simulation

Jiun-Wei Lai 1, * and Stephen A. Mahin 2

1 Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, USA 2 Byron L. and Elvira E. Nishkian Professor of Structural Engineering, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, USA Director, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, USA

Abstract

This paper presents the results of experimental and analytical studies carried out on two full-scale, one-bay, two-story steel concentrically braced frames. Square hollow and round hollow structural sections were used for the bracing components. The specimens were designed and detailed according to the 2005 AISC Seismic Provisions, and tested cyclically under displacement control but with a fixed lateral load distribution over height. Numerical computational models including the brace components, gusset plate details and frame members were implemented in OpenSees. Numerical simulations were then performed to investigate the cyclic behavior of brace components, brace failure mechanisms and overall system response. Satisfactory agreement was obtained in comparisons of experimental and numerical results. Premature failures observed suggest that beam- to-gusset plate connections could be pinned to accommodate large rotational demands at this location without the need to form plastic hinges. Test results also showed that for the braced frames having the same configuration, designed for similar base sh ear capacities, and subjected to the same roof level displacement history, the braced frame specimen using round tubular sections as diagonal braces was able to sustain larger story drifts without brace fracture than the specimen employing square tubular sections. Fracture of the column base in the second specimen, although inconclusive from a single test, suggests more study is needed of design requirements for column to base plate connections where large variations of axial, bending and shear load are expected.

Keywords: concentrically braced frames, hysteresis loops, low-cycle fatigue, hollow structural sections, experimental study

1. Introduction

Steel braced frames are considered one of the most efficient and economical lateral load resisting systems available to control deformations in civil structures under wind or earthquake loading. The behavior of braced frames in the elastic range, as expected during wind loading or minor seismic excitations, has been quite good; however, a review of the structural performance of steel braced frames after several major earthquakes has identified some anticipated and unanticipated damage (AIJ, 1995; Bonneville and Bartoletti, 1996; Kelly et al., 2000). This

Note.-Discussion open until August 1, 2014. This manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on April 29, 2012; approved on December 7, 2013. © KSSC and Springer 2014

*Corresponding author Tel: +1-510-965-7738 E-mail: adrian.jwlai@berkeley.edu

damage has prompted many engineers and researchers to consider ways of improving the post-elastic behavior of braced frame systems. One approach has been to increase the inelastic deformability of the brace by using manufactured elements, such as buckling restrained braces (Watanabe et al., 1988) and self-centering braces (Christopoulos et al., 2008). Others have carried out experimental studies (Lee and Goel, 1987; Tremblay et al., 2002; Roeder and Lehman, 2008) or analytical (Uriz and Mahin, 2008, Chen, 2010) investigations to assess the ability of braces having different slenderness and compactness to increase the drift capacity of braced frames. Another approach has been to reduce deformation demands by strengthening the system as a whole (Chen, 2010) or by mitigating local concentrations of overall system deformation at one or a few stories (Khatib et al., 1988; Tremblay and Merzouq, 2004). Although many experimental studies of conventional buckling brace components and several braced frame specimens have been investigated in the past thirty years (Black et al., 1980; Ballio and Perotti, 1987; Lee and

International Journal of Steel Structures March 2014, Vol 14, No 1, 43-58 DOI 10.1007/s13296-014-1006-4 www.springer.com/journal/13296 Steel
  • 44 Jiun-Wei Lai and Stephen A. Mahin / International Journal of Steel Structures, 14(1), 43-58, 2014

44 Jiun-Wei Lai and Stephen A. Mahin / International Journal of Steel Structures , 14(1), 43-58

Figure 1. Dimension of test specimen.

Goel, 1987; Bertero et al., 1989; Tremblay, 2002; Roeder et al., 2004; Yang and Mahin, 2005; Clark et al., 2008; Roeder and Lehman, 2008; Uriz and Mahin, 2008), the number of large-scale tests of complete concentric braced frames needed to assess ultimate system behavior is still limited. Since the overall behavior of braced frames is sensitive to relative proportions, strengths and stiffnesses of members and local details, system tests are needed to assess fully the adequacy of current code provisions and suggested improvements. As such, integrated experimental and analytical studies are carried out to examine likely seismic behavior of representative concentrically braced steel frame systems, and the ability of current analysis methods to simulate this behavior. In this study, two full-scale, one- bay, two-story steel concentrically braced frames were constructed and tested under a series of cyclic lateral displacement excursions increasing in amplitude up to a maximum roof drift ratio about 4%. In a companion study of code-compliant special concentric braced frames (Lai et al., 2010), nonlinear dynamic analyses showed that under the most severe hazard level considered (i.e. 2% probability of exceedence in 50 years), the median expected maximum story drift ratio is about 3.3%.

2. Design and Analysis of Frame Specimens

2.1. Selection of brace configuration and preliminary analysis

As part of a George E. Brown, Jr., Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) Small Group Project entitled “International Hybrid Simulation of Tomorrow’s Braced Frame Systems,” a coordinated set of large-scale tests were carried out on various configurations of concentrically braced frames representative of systems used in western North America. These tests included two- story and three-story double story X-braced frames tested at the National Center for Research in Earthquake Engineering (NCREE) in Taiwan (Clark et al., 2008;

44 Jiun-Wei Lai and Stephen A. Mahin / International Journal of Steel Structures , 14(1), 43-58

Figure 2. Overview of the final test setup.

Lumpkin et al., 2010), a three-dimensional frame tested at the University of Minnesota (Palmer et al., 2010), and two-story frames with diamond-shaped brace configurations (with a V configuration in the lower story and an inverted-V shape in the upper story) tested at University of California, Berkeley. This paper focuses on two of the Berkeley test specimens. The diamond brace configuration used for these specimens was selected to complement other tests carried out in the overall program and to focus attention on floors where gusset plates are used to connect braces to columns. Due to space and test rig limitations, typical story height and beam span were selected as 2,743 mm and 6,096 mm, respectively, as shown in Fig. 1. In one specimen, square HSS sections were used for the braces, while circular HSS sections were used in the other specimen.

2.2. Design of test rig

Several configurations were considered and carefully evaluated during the design of the test setup (Lai, 2009). An overview of the final test setup is shown in Fig. 2. Thirty reconfigurable reaction blocks (ten blocks per stack) were grouted together and post-tensioned horizontally and vertically over a strong floor to create an integrated reaction wall. The maximum base shear capacity of the test setup is 4,003 kN (with 2,669 kN applied at the upper level and 1,334 kN at the lower level), assuming the load applied by the lower actuator is half that acting in the upper one. An Atlas 6,672 kN actuator with ±304.8 mm stoke was attached at each floor level. This stroke capacity corresponds to about 5% of the total height of the test specimen. A heavy built-up beam (Fig. 2) was provided between the specimen and the laboratory strong floor to spread out concentrated reaction forces at the base of the specimen. Four additional stiff load transfer beams were provided below the top flange of the cellular strong floor to spread out the concentrated uplift forces. Out-of-plane support of the test specimen was provided along the top of both beams and at the beam-to-column connections by a stiff and strong transverse support frame shown in Fig.

Steel Concentrically Braced Frames using Tubular Structural Sections as Bracing Members: Design, Full-Scale Testing ...

45

Steel Concentrically Braced Frames using Tubular Structural Sections as Bracing Members: Design, Full-Scale Testing ... 45

Figure 3. The net section reinforcing plate.

2. The lateral supports were designed to move longitudinally with the test specimen. Details of the test setup design are summarized in a report by Lai (Lai, 2009).

  • 2.3. Design of braces

For the ideal condition where the top floor is subjected to twice the lateral force as the lower floor, the braces were selected to protect the test setup such that story shears would not exceed 4,003 kN and 2,669 kN in the lower and upper stories, respectively. By assuming the braces resist about 80% of the maximum permitted story shear, using a system over-strength factor of 2 as stipulated in the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 2005b) and considering the geometry of the bracing system, the maximum permitted brace forces were estimated. Detailing requirements from the AISC Specification (AISC, 2005a) and AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 2005b), such as limitations on brace slenderness ratio and width-thickness ratio, were imposed to finalize the brace size and the detailing of the specimen. For instance, net section reinforcing plates designed in accordance with AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 2005b) were welded on all tubular brace connection regions, as shown in Fig. 3, to prevent possible premature fractures (Yang and Mahin, 2005).

  • 2.4. Design of columns

A tributary gravity load (computed based typical design dead and live loads for office occupancies and a tributary floor area of 18.6 m 2 ) was included in the column design. The column axial force due to overturning was estimated by dividing the maximum overturning moment permitted by the test set up at the base level by the moment arm between the two columns. Accordingly, the estimated axial force was 214 kN from the tributary gravity loading and 3,003 kN from overturning. The demands of bending moment in the columns were calculated from structural analysis. Since the specimen was only two-stories tall, a single piece column extended over both stories. Because tributary gravity loads contributed only a minor portion of the total column axial load, these loads were not imposed during the tests.

Steel Concentrically Braced Frames using Tubular Structural Sections as Bracing Members: Design, Full-Scale Testing ... 45

Figure 4. The load condition for lower beam.

  • 2.5. Design of beams

The design approach used for the upper and lower beams differed slightly. The roof beam was designed assuming a maximum axial force of 2,669 kN (corresponding to the maximum force permitted in the upper actuator). The bending moment demands for the top beam were extracted from structural analysis results, considering a vertical unbalanced force produced by the two braces intersecting at the beam’s midspan, as required by the AISC Seismic Provisions (2005b). For the lower beam, the maximum axial force was calculated to be 1,415 kN under the loading conditions shown in Fig. 4 (for Specimen TCBF-B-1). Bending moments in the lower beam were calculated from structural analysis. No vertical unbalanced load was required for the lower beam level due to the brace configuration.

  • 2.6. Design of gusset plates

All gusset plates were designed for out-of-plane buckling considering the uniform force method suggested in AISC Specification (AISC, 2005a). Typical details used (Fig. 5) incorporated 30-degree tapers and a plastic hinge fold gap equal to twice the thickness of the gusset plate. To explore the possibility of simplifying field erection, a single piece gusset plate was attached to each column at the lower level. This plate was intended to be welded to the column in the shop, and to the beam and braces in the field. Two finger plates were shop welded to each of these gusset plates to simulate the flanges of a beam continuing to the column face. The fingerplates extend slightly beyond the ends of the gusset plate tapers (Fig. 6) to facilitate welding of the beam to the gusset plate.

  • 2.7. Design of connections

All connections were designed considering the maximum probable force in the interface using the capacity design approach outlined in the AISC Seismic Provisions (2005b).

  • 2.8. Design of base plates

Base plates and end plates were designed according to the AISC steel design guide (Fisher and Kloiber, 2006). Table 1 as well as Figs. 7 and 8 summarize the final

  • 46 Jiun-Wei Lai and Stephen A. Mahin / International Journal of Steel Structures, 14(1), 43-58, 2014

46 Jiun-Wei Lai and Stephen A. Mahin / International Journal of Steel Structures , 14(1), 43-58

Figure 5. Typical gusset plate detail.

46 Jiun-Wei Lai and Stephen A. Mahin / International Journal of Steel Structures , 14(1), 43-58

Figure 6. The one-piece gusset plate.

member sizes and the material types used. The members satisfy 2005 AISC requirements for compactness, as can be noted in Table 2, and very nearly satisfy those in the draft 2010 edition for highly ductile members. In interpreting results, it is useful to note that the round HSS brace sections selected satisfy the compactness requirement by

46 Jiun-Wei Lai and Stephen A. Mahin / International Journal of Steel Structures , 14(1), 43-58

Figure 7. Member sizes of test specimen TCBF-B-1.

46 Jiun-Wei Lai and Stephen A. Mahin / International Journal of Steel Structures , 14(1), 43-58

Figure 8. Member sizes of test specimen TCBF-B-2.

Table 1. Name, member size, and material type of the specimen components

Name

Column & Beams Section and Material

Braces Section and Material

b/t (h/t w )

b/t (D/t)

kL/r

TCBF-B-1

TCBF-B-2

W12×96 (Column)

W24×117 (Roof Beam)

W24×68 (Lower Beam) (ASTM A992)

6.76

7.53

(17.7)

(39.2)

HSS 5×5×5/16

HSS 6×6×3/8

(ASTM A500B)

14.2

14.2

51

47

7.66

(52.0)

HSS 5×1/2

HSS 6×1/2

(ASTM A500B)

10.8

12.9

60

55

Table 2. AISC Seismic Provision Limitations

Seismic Provision

Limitations

Wide Flange Web (h/t w )

HSS

Flange (b/t)

Square (b/t)

Round (D/t)

2005

Seismic

Compactness

λ ps =52.6 (Column, C a =0.38)

λ ps =7.22

λ ps =52.3 (Roof Beam, C a =0.39) λ ps =53.4 (Lower Beam, C a =0.35)

λ ps =16.1

λ ps =27.7

2010

Highly Ductile

Moderately

Ductile

λ hd =7.22 λ md =9.15

λ hd =47.3 (Column, C a =0.38) λ md =52.6 (Column, C a =0.38)

λ hd =47.1 (Roof Beam, C a =0.39) λ md =52.3 (Roof Beam, C a =0.39) λ hd =47.8 (Lower Beam, C a =0.35) λ md =53.4 (Lower Beam, C a =0.35)

λ hd =13.8 λ md =16.1

λ hd =24.0 λ md =27.7

Steel Concentrically Braced Frames using Tubular Structural Sections as Bracing Members: Design, Full-Scale Testing ...

47

Steel Concentrically Braced Frames using Tubular Structural Sections as Bracing Members: Design, Full-Scale Testing ... 47

Figure 9. Specimen TCBF-B-1.

a far greater margin than do the square sections. All wide flange beams, columns and braces in the specimens were ASTM A992 steel sections. All braces were made of ASTM A500 Grade B steel. The 19 mm thick gusset plates, 51 mm thick base plates, 51 mm stub beam end

plates, 13 mm

shear tabs, 16 mm finger plates, 16 mm

continuity plates, 10 mm washer plates for all-thread anchor rods and brace reinforcing cover plates were made of ASTM A572 Grade 50 steel plate. Beam web stiffener plates, lifting lugs, shim plates and miscellaneous parts were made of ASTM A36 steel plates. High strength structural fasteners that satisfy the ASTM A490 standard were used at beam-column connections and the one-piece gusset plate-to-beam web splices. High strength, all-thread anchor rods (ASTM A193 Grade B7) were used at column bases and gusset-to-floor beam base plates. Figures 9(a) and 10(a) show the photo of specimen TCBF-B-1 and TCBF-B-2 before testing. To reduce overall cost of specimen fabrication, the top beam and two columns in Specimen TCBF-B-1 were reused in Specimen TCBF-B-2.

Steel Concentrically Braced Frames using Tubular Structural Sections as Bracing Members: Design, Full-Scale Testing ... 47

Figure 10. Specimen TCBF-B-2.

3. Loading History

The displacement of the roof beam was monitored and used to control the overall motion of the specimens. The lower level actuator was force controlled to have half of the load applied at the upper level. The resulting lateral force pattern is a typical inverted triangular distribution. The test protocol was adapted from the Appendix T of the AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 2005b). An additional six cycles corresponding to one half of the elastic design drift (0.5D be ) and two cycles at the elastic design drift (D be ) were added to the beginning of the test protocol. Figure 11 shows a plot of the cyclic test protocol in terms of roof displacement and roof drift ratio. Specimen movement towards the east side of the laboratory (Fig. 1) is defined as a positive displacement. During the test process, loading was paused to document major events, such as brace fracture, weld cracking, or significant yielding or local buckling of members. Testing was terminated following any cycle in which both braces at a single story were completely fractured.

Steel Concentrically Braced Frames using Tubular Structural Sections as Bracing Members: Design, Full-Scale Testing ... 47

Figure 11. Loading protocol for Specimens TCBF-B-1 and TCBF-B-2.

  • 48 Jiun-Wei Lai and Stephen A. Mahin / International Journal of Steel Structures, 14(1), 43-58, 2014

48 Jiun-Wei Lai and Stephen A. Mahin / International Journal of Steel Structures , 14(1), 43-58

Figure 12. The yield patterns in the first story gusset plates after testing for both specimens.

  • 4. Instrumentation

More than two hundred instruments, including linear strain gages, strain gage rosettes, linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs), wire pots and tilt-meters were installed and monitored throughout the entire test. The specimen was whitewashed to help in visual detection of yielding and damage. Multiple time lapse digital images were taken using high-resolution digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) cameras and stored using desktop computers. Four Canon EOS 5D Mark-II DSLR cameras were connected to the data acquisition system and triggered to take still photos every 5 mm of roof displacement. Three Canon EOS D1 DSLR cameras were connected to desktop computers and shot still images every 10 seconds continuously throughout the tests. Additional high definition (HD) videos captured global and certain local behavior of individual braces. A three-dimensional Leica HD laser scanner was also used to capture the specimen’s deformed shape throughout the cyclic testing.

  • 5. Test Results

In many respects, Specimens TCBF-B-1 and TCBF-B- 2 behaved as expected. The braces all buckled out-of- plane (see Figs. 9(b) and 10(b) for details) as intended. The net section reinforcing plates at the brace-to-gusset plate connections achieved their purpose, with no weld or other yielding or fractures noted in these areas. In the gusset plates, the expected yield pattern was developed within the 2t fold line width provided (Figs. 12(a) and 12(b)). However, as discussed later, significant damage occurred at the ends of the lower level beam and at the base of the columns that limited the ultimate displacement capacity of the specimens. A more detailed description of the testing process and key observations is provided by Lai (Lai, 2009).

5.1. Overall behavior

The peak actuator forces (Figs. 13 and 14) throughout the test in both experiments were all less than the maximum forces permitted for each actuator, which were 2669 kN for upper level actuator and 1334 kN for lower level

actuator. Thus, no excessive overturning moment was developed during the test that would overload the test setup or reaction floor. These figures illustrate that the degradation of the peak story shear forces occurs rapidly once the crack in the brace initiated (Figs. 13 and 14) and also points out that the peak story shear forces degrade more slowly with cycling for Specimen TCBF-B-2 than for Specimen TCBF-B-1. Specimen base shear versus roof displacement hysteresis loops are presented in Figs. 15 and 16. Loops for both specimens are fairly stable and repeatable during the early cycles. However, there is a reduction of load capacity during repeated cycles to the same displacement. This cyclic strength deterioration increases with increasing displacement amplitude. A more detailed assessment of the hysteretic characteristics of the specimens can be made by examining the relation between story shear and story deformations (or story drifts). Figures 17 and 18 indicate that lateral drifts were larger in the lower story, especially for Specimen TCBF- B-1. Interestingly, the individual story deformation excursions are not symmetric even though the roof displacements are symmetrically applied. This is mainly associated with the unequal distribution of story drifts due to the weak story mechanism that occurs once the braces buckle. The distribution of drift is also influenced to a smaller extent by the configuration of the braces and the way that actuators are attached to the specimen.

5.2. Behavior of braces

Brace axial force versus axial deformation hysteresis loops are plotted in Figs. 19 and 20. All four braces in both specimens yielded in tension and buckled in compression. Since load cells were not installed in the braces, brace axial forces were estimated in several ways using strain gauge measurements from portion of the braces and adjacent elements that remained essentially elastic in conjunction with elementary mechanics and equilibrium considerations. The different methods considered produced similar results and best estimates are plotted (see Lai and Mahin, 2013 for more details). Minor deformation hardening during inelastic elongation of the tubular braces is noted in all four braces in both specimens. The peak compression strength decreased

Steel Concentrically Braced Frames using Tubular Structural Sections as Bracing Members: Design, Full-Scale Testing ...

49

Steel Concentrically Braced Frames using Tubular Structural Sections as Bracing Members: Design, Full-Scale Testing ... 49

Figure 13. Actuator force and story displacement time history for Specimen TCBF-B-1.

Steel Concentrically Braced Frames using Tubular Structural Sections as Bracing Members: Design, Full-Scale Testing ... 49

Figure 14. Actuator force and story displacement time history for Specimen TCBF-B-2.

significantly from cycle to cycle. The braces buckled laterally, and formed plastic hinges in the gusset plates (Fig. 12) and at midspan. The midspan plastic hinge locally buckled on the compression-most (inside) face of the section. With increased cycling and deformation, rupture initiated in the locally buckled region and propagated during further cycling until complete fracture of the section occurred. This behavior is representative of that observed in past component tests (Black et al., 1980; Lee and Goel, 1987; Tremblay, 2002; Yang and Mahin, 2005). At the end of tests, both braces in the lower story of both specimens had completely fractured, while the braces in the upper story had not. A partial fracture was observed in the upper story east brace in Specimen TCBF-B-1 (upper part of Fig. 19). No cracks initiated in the upper story braces in Specimen TCBF-B-2.

Steel Concentrically Braced Frames using Tubular Structural Sections as Bracing Members: Design, Full-Scale Testing ... 49

Figure 15. Base shear vs. roof displacement relationship for Specimen TCBF-B-1.

Steel Concentrically Braced Frames using Tubular Structural Sections as Bracing Members: Design, Full-Scale Testing ... 49

Figure 16. Base shear vs. roof displacement relationship for Specimen TCBR-B-1.

The out-of-plane displacements at the mid-span of each brace are shown in Figs. 21 and 22. The maximum brace out-of-plane displacements for Specimen TCBF-B-1 were closed to 380 mm in the lower story and 240 mm in the upper story. For Specimen TCBF-B-2, the maximum brace out-of-plane displacements were close to 500 mm in the lower story and 340 mm in the upper story. These brace out-of-plane displacements were as large as about eight times the axial deformations recorded in the braces (Figs. 19, 20, 21 and 22). This potential out-of-plane deformation should be considered when braces are placed near safety related nonstructural components, such as stairways, or cladding elements that may pose a falling hazard. Figure 21 and the lower part of Fig. 22 show that during the last cycles of response out-of-plane displacements were developed at the peak tension loading. In earlier

  • 50 Jiun-Wei Lai and Stephen A. Mahin / International Journal of Steel Structures, 14(1), 43-58, 2014

Figure 17. Story shear vs. story drift relationship for
Figure
17.
Story
shear
vs.
story
drift
relationship
for

Specimen TCBF-B-1.

cycles, the out-of-plane displacements generally returned to zero as the brace was loaded in tension. However, once ruptures initiated at the midspan of a brace, the center of the remaining material at this section shifted from the mid-depth of the section. As a result of this eccentricity, the brace displaced laterally in the direction opposite in sign from that occurring during the compression phase of the cycle. This local bending at the ruptured section during the tension phase of a cycle is believed to accelerate the complete fracture of the section. This phenomenon can be observed in both experiments where the brace fractured or cracked in the specimen (Fig. 21 and the lower part of Fig. 22).

5.3. Behavior of columns, beams and connections

During cycles with small lateral displacement, the axial forces in the east- and west-side columns were nearly of equal magnitude but opposite in sign. This can be seen in Figs. 23 and 24. Once braces buckled and began to loose compression capacity, the internal forces in the frames

Figure 18. Story shear vs. story drift relationship for
Figure
18.
Story
shear
vs.
story
drift
relationship
for

Specimen TCBF-B-2.

redistributed so that the tension braces still developed their full tensile capacity. The unbalance between the peak compression and tensile forces developed in the braces resulted in the peak compression forces in the columns becoming far greater than the peak tensile forces. The column axial compression force drop gradually with the deterioration of the compression capacity of the contiguous brace, and rapidly as the tension brace begins to rupture. Even with the complete fracture of both braces, the remaining beams and columns act as a moment- resisting frame, and some variation of column axial loads occurred during continued lateral displacement. Note that in TCBF-B-2 specimen, the CJP weld connecting on the outermost flange of the west column to the thick base plate fractured suddenly in the early portion of the planned test protocol; at a roof drift ratio of about 0.9%. The fracture initiates in the vicinity of the heat-affected zone in the base plate and is shown in Fig. 25. The column base then underwent emergency repair using a large cover plate on the fractured flange (which

Steel Concentrically Braced Frames using Tubular Structural Sections as Bracing Members: Design, Full-Scale Testing ...

51

Steel Concentrically Braced Frames using Tubular Structural Sections as Bracing Members: Design, Full-Scale Testing ... 51

Figure 19. Estimated brace axial forces vs. brace axial deformations for Specimen TCBF-B-1.

Steel Concentrically Braced Frames using Tubular Structural Sections as Bracing Members: Design, Full-Scale Testing ... 51

Figure 20. Estimated brace axial forces vs. brace axial deformations for Specimen TCBF-B-2.

also suffered a small amount of local buckling) and stiffeners around the column base as shown in Fig. 26. The modification of the column base for the west-side column changed that column’s stiffness and moved the potential plastic hinge location upwards. The strong axis bending moment in the columns at top and bottom ends in each story were estimated from readings of strain gages located away from potential plastic hinge regions. These readings reveal that the columns at both stories in Specimen TCBF-B-1 remained essentially elastic throughout the entire experiment, except at the column bases. Minor flaking of whitewash was also noted at the column bases. During the TCBF-B-2 test, significant yielding (identified through Lüders lines seen

in Figs. 25 and 27) occurred in the lower story columns and also at the bottom end of the west side column in the upper story (Fig. 28). The peak base shear and column axial loads in this specimen were slightly higher than those in Specimen TCBF-B-2. Fracture may have been also associated with the cumulative effects of prior inelastic actions that occurred at the column base during testing of TCBF-B-1. However, as seen in Fig. 25, the pattern of yield lines, and observed distortion of the specimen during the tests, suggests that the column base was subjected to torsional and out-of-plane bending as a result of the eccentric transfer of forces from the buckled braces to the column. The total column shear forces estimated at each story

  • 52 Jiun-Wei Lai and Stephen A. Mahin / International Journal of Steel Structures, 14(1), 43-58, 2014

52 Jiun-Wei Lai and Stephen A. Mahin / International Journal of Steel Structures , 14(1), 43-58

Figure 21. Estimated brace axial forces vs. brace out-of-plane displacements for Specimen TCBF-B-1.

52 Jiun-Wei Lai and Stephen A. Mahin / International Journal of Steel Structures , 14(1), 43-58

Figure 22. Estimated brace axial forces vs. brace out-of-plane displacements for Specimen TCBF-B-2.

for both specimens are shown in Figs. 29 and 30. Almost symmetric shear force response was found in Specimen TCBF-B-1, while un-symmetric response was found in Specimen TCBF-B-2 after the installation of the repair. It is believed that this asymmetry is due to local strains in the gages near the repair exceeding yield (Fig. 27(b)). From the relationships plotted between total column shear force and story shear force in Figs. 31 and 32, the columns took at the beginning of the tests about 17% of total story shear at both stories. After the braces buckled, the columns took a greater and greater portion of the total story shear. A slope of unity in these plots suggests that the columns took the entire story shear, as is observed for the later cycles for the lower story. It is also interesting to

note that the lower story column webs yielded for both specimens, as identified from significant flaking of white wash and from shear strain values derived from rosette gages installed on the columns’ web. The webs in the upper level columns remained elastic. The distribution of whitewash flaking can be seen in Figs. 27(b) and 28(a) for the west-side column. The top-level beam behaved as expected. Vertical deflections developed at the mid-span of the beam. For both specimens, the peak deflection was about 5 mm (less than 1/1000 beam span) and the top beam remained elastic (confirmed by strain gage readings). The maximum unbalanced force applied to the upper beam was estimated from strain gage readings on the adjacent beams to be

Steel Concentrically Braced Frames using Tubular Structural Sections as Bracing Members: Design, Full-Scale Testing ...

53

Steel Concentrically Braced Frames using Tubular Structural Sections as Bracing Members: Design, Full-Scale Testing ... 53

Figure 23. Roof displacement vs. column axial forces for Specimen TCBF-B-1.

Steel Concentrically Braced Frames using Tubular Structural Sections as Bracing Members: Design, Full-Scale Testing ... 53

Figure 24. Roof displacement vs. column axial forces for Specimen TCBF-B-2.

690 kN and 835 kN for Specimens TCBF-B-1 and TCBF- B-2, respectively. These are smaller than design values based on AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 2005b) of 830 kN and 960 kN. Note that the actual R y value computed for the square and round HSS braces used were 1.2 and 1.3, respectively, (which are less than 1.4 specified in AISC Seismic Provisions for ASTM A500B steel). In addition, the observed residual post-buckling compressive strengths were higher than 30% of the braces’ initial compressive strengths. These factors reduced the unbalanced loads resisted by to the top beam. Since no braces were connected to the midspan of the lower beam, this beam’s vertical deflection was quite small for either specimen. However, plastic hinges began to form at both ends of the lower beam in both specimens at a drift of about 1.25%, and with further cycling, significant local buckling rapidly developed in both specimens at the top and bottom beam flanges (and to a significant, but lessor

Steel Concentrically Braced Frames using Tubular Structural Sections as Bracing Members: Design, Full-Scale Testing ... 53

Figure 25. West column base weld fractured during the first trial for Specimen TCBF-B-2.

Steel Concentrically Braced Frames using Tubular Structural Sections as Bracing Members: Design, Full-Scale Testing ... 53

Figure 26. West column base after repair for Specimen

TCBF-B-2.

extent, to the beam web) adjacent to the gusset plates (Figs. 33 and 34). The estimated axial forces in the lower beam derived from strain gage readings at different locations indicate that a maximum axial force of about 1334 kN developed during the tests in both compression and tension. This compares to values of 1415 kN and 1350 kN in compression used in design of Specimens TCBF-B-1 and TCBF-B-2, respectively (Fig. 4). Based on simple equilibrium, one would expect tensile loads in this beam to be quite small. However, beam plastic hinging and local buckling resulted in a net overall shortening of the beam when it was subjected to compression loads. To maintain compatibility with the rest of the specimen, significant transient and residual tension forces were developed in the beam. Nonetheless, the 2005 AISC Seismic Provisions do not provide any direct guidance on the need to design such beams for axial load. Due to the severe local buckling of the lower beams plastic hinge regions, one of the flanges fractured on each end of the beam. This occurred in both specimens at a drift ratio of about 2%. The one-piece gusset plate details used here may have aggravated the initiation and severity of the flange local bucking due to the weld access holes provided between the beam flange and web at the end of the finger plate stiffeners. Once one of the flanges fractured, further rotation at this location was adequately accommodated by yielding and local buckling of the web and bending of the

  • 54 Jiun-Wei Lai and Stephen A. Mahin / International Journal of Steel Structures, 14(1), 43-58, 2014

Figure 27. Column base yield patterns for Specimen
Figure
27.
Column
base
yield
patterns
for
Specimen

TCBF-B-2.

Figure 28. Second story column yield patterns
Figure
28.
Second
story
column
yield
patterns

Specimen TCBF-B-2.

for

Figure 29. Time history of the sum of column shear
Figure 29.
Time
history of
the
sum
of column shear

forces in both stories for Specimen TCBF-B-1.

Figure 30. Time history of the sum of column shear
Figure
30.
Time
history
of
the
sum
of column shear

forces in both stories for Specimen TCBF-B-2.

remaining flange. This suggests that a simple pin connection at this location might be acceptable.

54 Jiun-Wei Lai and Stephen A. Mahin / International Journal of Steel Structures , 14(1), 43-58

Figure 31. Story shear component from two columns vs. total story shear forces for Specimen TCBF-B-1.

54 Jiun-Wei Lai and Stephen A. Mahin / International Journal of Steel Structures , 14(1), 43-58

Figure 32. Story shear component from two columns vs. total story shear forces for SpecimenTCBF-B-2.

5.4. Panel zone and gusset plates

No web doubler plates were provided in the panel zones. In both specimens, the lower floor level panel zones were attached to large gusset plates and did not yield, while the panel zones in the roof beam-column connections yielded in both tests (detected by whitewash flaking and readings from strain rosettes). This inelastic deformation in the upper level panel zone was compatible with the plastic hinging noted at the ends of the lower level beam. No significant adverse effects on system behavior of either specimen resulted from this yielding. The one-piece-gusset plates formed a yield line, perpendicular to the axis of the brace yielded as expected, near the 2t yield line region in the first and second story gusset plates (Figs. 12, 33 and 34). In the TCBF-B-2 test, eleven linear strain gages were attached on one face of

Steel Concentrically Braced Frames using Tubular Structural Sections as Bracing Members: Design, Full-Scale Testing ...

55

Figure 33. Plastic hinges formed in the lower beam
Figure
33. Plastic
hinges formed in the lower beam

Specimen TCBF-B-1.

of Figure 34. Plastic hinges formed in the lower beam of
of
Figure 34.
Plastic hinges formed in the lower beam
of

Specimen TCBF-B-2.

the one-piece-gusset plate located on the east side of the first story. These were used to monitor the axial stain distribution in the tapered region of the gusset plate. Figure 35 shows plots of the difference in strains on corresponding locations on opposite sides of the gusset plate. The increase in these strains with distance from the centerline of the brace suggests that the braces contribute to in-plane frame action.

6. Numerical Simulation of Test Results

In the computational phase of this study, a low-cycle fatigue sensitive material model (Uriz and Mahin, 2008) implemented in the computer analysis framework OpenSees (McKenna, 1997) was used. All wide flange beams, columns and tubular braces were modeled using force- based nonlinear beam-column elements with initial transverse imperfections (about 1/1000 of the member length). Corotational geometric transformations were used to capture member geometric nonlinearities under large

deformation (i.e., to simulate member lateral buckling). Fiber sections were used to model the geometric cross sectional shape of members. The total number of elements used to represent each brace was 24, and 64 fibers were used to represent each square HSS and round HSS, as shown in Fig. 36(a). The uniaxial Giuffre- Menegotto-Pinto steel material with initial elastic tangent of 200 GPa and a strain-hardening ratio of 0.003 was used. Yield strength of the steel material was based on the mill certificate report. Rigid end zones were assumed in the model connections and gusset plates. Figure 36(b) schematically illustrates the two-story braced frame specimen model used with OpenSees. A series of material calibration trials were done to identify low-cycle fatigue and other properties for the braces using existing experimental data on tubular braces (i.e., Yang and Mahin, 2005). Two typical calibration results under different loading histories are shown in Figs. 37 and 38. From the plots we can clearly see that the overall cyclic behaviors in the component tests are

Steel Concentrically Braced Frames using Tubular Structural Sections as Bracing Members: Design, Full-Scale Testing ... 55

Figure 35. The bending strain time history in the tapered gusset plate at eastern side of Specimen TCBF-B-2.

  • 56 Jiun-Wei Lai and Stephen A. Mahin / International Journal of Steel Structures, 14(1), 43-58, 2014

56 Jiun-Wei Lai and Stephen A. Mahin / International Journal of Steel Structures , 14(1), 43-58

Figure 36. Illustration of OpenSees Two-Story Braced Frame Model.

56 Jiun-Wei Lai and Stephen A. Mahin / International Journal of Steel Structures , 14(1), 43-58

Figure 37. Square HSS brace axial force-axial displacement relationships (test vs. OpenSees).

56 Jiun-Wei Lai and Stephen A. Mahin / International Journal of Steel Structures , 14(1), 43-58

Figure 38. Round HSS brace axial force-axial displacement relationships (test vs. OpenSees).

captured well by the OpenSees low cycle fatigue model. Using the input parameters obtained from the calibration

56 Jiun-Wei Lai and Stephen A. Mahin / International Journal of Steel Structures , 14(1), 43-58

Figure 39. Test results vs. OpenSees cyclic pushover results for Specimen TCBF-B-1.

56 Jiun-Wei Lai and Stephen A. Mahin / International Journal of Steel Structures , 14(1), 43-58

Figure 40. Test results vs. OpenSees cyclic pushover results for Specimen TCBF-B-2.

results, analyses of the two-story specimens were performed using the recorded top-level displacement history as

Steel Concentrically Braced Frames using Tubular Structural Sections as Bracing Members: Design, Full-Scale Testing ...

57

input. The numerical results obtained are compared with the actual test results for both specimens in Figs. 39 and 40. It is clear that the overall behaviors of two braced frame specimens are well predicted by the simulation models, including the deterioration and member failure.

7. Conclusions

Based on the experimental and analytical results presented, several conclusions can be drawn. It should be recognized, however, that these are based on two specimens, each of which includes unique details. As such, these conclusions may not apply to other brace configurations, other braces having different slenderness and compactness ratios, or material properties. When designed for similar base shear capacity and subjected to the same loading protocol, the specimen (TCBF-B-2) with braces fabricated from round tubular sections exhibits better displacement capacity than the more traditional specimen (TCBF-B-1) that used square tubular sections as braces. The peak base shear developed in inelastic cycles was also observed to degrade slower and local buckling of the braces occurred later in Specimen TCBF-B-2 specimen under the same test sequence. The particular round HSS braces used satisfied AISC requirements for compactness by a far greater margin than did the square HSS braces. This selection of a size for the hollow round brace was a consequence of using a small diameter circular section with a strength and slenderness similar to that used for the square HSS brace. For the inverted triangular pattern of lateral load used in design and imposed during the tests, story drifts tended, once brace buckling initiated, to be larger in the lower level than in the upper story. This concentration of damage is associated with braces at each level buckling at different times and degrading at different rates during the test. This difference is a consequence of the finite number of sizes from which to pick bracing members satisfying design requirements, and small differences between the boundary and initial conditions for the as-built specimens and the analytical models used in design. Because the story with the greatest lateral displacement tends have its strength deteriorate more, damage tends to concentrate eventually in a single story. In both specimens, selection of brace sizes as close to the expected demands resulted in initial lateral buckling of braces in both stories. However, because of the slower deterioration of strength exhibited by the compact round HSS braces, the distribution of lateral displacement for Specimen TCBF-B-2 was more uniform than for Specimen TCBF-B-1. The gusset plate details performed as intended. However, at large lateral displacements, frame action resulted in plastic hinges at the faces of the gusset plate used to attach the beam to the column. The single-piece gusset used worked well, but the complexities of the connection

of the beam to the gusset plate may have accelerated local buckling and fracture of the beam at this location. A pinned beam-to-gusset detail might be advisable to avoid such local damage. Test results indicate large axial forces, including large tensile forces, develop in the beams as a result of the unbalance in horizontal force components of the braces joining at the ends of the beam and shortening of the beam plastic hinge regions. More study is needed to better understand the required axial strength and stiffness of beams in concentric braced frames. The columns from Specimen TCBF-B-1 were reused for Specimen TCBF-B-2. The failure at one of the column base welds may be an indication of inadequate workmanship, or possibly low-cycle fatigue. The behavior of this particular connection is complicated due to the absence of a gusset plate at the base of the column to assist in transferring axial load to the base plate, and the presence of torsional and out-of-plane bending in the column associated with the out-of-plane buckling of the braces at the level above. More study is warranted. The numerical model implemented in OpenSees was able to match the experimental results with considerable accuracy. The key to this modeling was the use of fiber- based models that captured the brace hysteretic loops well, and the use of an empirically calibrated low-cycle fatigue model to capture the progressive rupture the bracing elements. Such fiber models do not directly account for the effects of local buckling, and their use requires careful validation using relevant test results.

Acknowledgment

This research is supported by National Science Foundation (NSF) under grant number CMMI-0619161. Financial Support from NSF is greatly appreciated. The conclusions and opinions expressed in this paper are only those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the sponsor. Tests would not have been possible without the assistance of the Herrick Corporation; their help on fabricating and erecting the test specimens are greatly appreciated.

References

AIJ (1995). Reconnaissance report on damage to steel building structures observed from the 1995 Hyogoken-

Nanbu (Hanshin/Awaji) earthquake. Steel Committee of Kinki Branch, Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, Japan. AISC (2005a). Specification for structural steel buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois. AISC (2005b). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois. Ballio, G. and Perotti, F. (1987). “Cyclic behavior of axially loaded members: Numerical simulation and experimental

  • 58 Jiun-Wei Lai and Stephen A. Mahin / International Journal of Steel Structures, 14(1), 43-58, 2014

verification.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 7, pp. 3-41. Bertero, V. V., Uang, C.-M., Llopiz, C., and Igarashi, K. (1989). “Earthquake simulator testing of concentric braced dual system.” Journal of Structural Engineering,

ASCE, 115(8), pp. 1877-1894. Black, G. R., Wenger, B. A., and Popov, E. P. (1980).

Inelastic buckling of steel struts under cyclic load reversals. UCB/EERC-80/40, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

Bonneville, D. and Bartoletti, S. (1996). Case study 2.3:

Concentric braced frame, Lankershim Boulevard, North Hollywood. 1994 Northridge earthquake; building case Studies project; proposition 122: product 3.2, SSC 94-06, Seismic Safety Commission State of California, pp. 305-

324.

Chen, C.-H. (2010). Performance-based seismic demand assessment of concentrically braced steel frame buildings. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Christopoulos, C., Tremblay, R., Kim, H. J., and Lacerte, M. (2008). “Self-centering energy dissipative bracing system for the seismic resistance of structures: Development and validation.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 134(1), pp. 96-107. Clark, K., Powell, P., Lehman, D., Roeder, C., and Tsai, K.C. (2008). “Experimental performance of multi-story X- braced frame systems.” Proc. SEAOC 77 th Annual Convention, Big Island, Hawaii. Fisher, J. M. and Kloiber, L. A. (2006). Base plate and anchor rod design. 2 nd Edition, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois. Kelly, D. J., Bonneville, D., and Bartoletti, S. (2000). “1994 Northridge earthquake: damage to a four-story steel braced frame building and its subsequent upgrade.” Proc. 12 th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Upper Hutt, New Zealand. Khatib, I. F., Mahin, S. A., and Pister, K. S. (1988). Seismic behavior of concentrically braced steel frames. UCB/ EERC-88/01, Earthquake Eng. Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Lai, J. W. (2009). Test results of two special concentric braced frame specimens. CE299 Report, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Lai, J. W., Chen, C. H., and Mahin, S. A. (2010). “Experimental and analytical performance of concentrically braced steel frames.” Proc. NASCC the Steel Conference and the Structures Congress, Orlando, FL.

Lai, J. W. and Mahin, S. A. (2013). Experimental and analytical studies on the seismic behavior of conventional and hybrid braced frames. PEER 2013/20, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

Lee, S. and Goel, S. C. (1987). Seismic behavior of hollow and concrete filled square tubular bracing members.

UMCE87-11, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Lumpkin, E., Hsiao, P., Roeder, C. W., Lehman D. E., Tsai, K. C., Lin, C. H., Wu, A. C., and Wei, C. Y. (2010). “Cyclic response of three-story, full-scale concentrically

braced frames.” Proc. 9 th U.S. National and 10 th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Toronto, Canada. McKenna, F. (1997). Object oriented finite element programming: Frameworks for analysis, algorithms and

parallel computing. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Palmer, K., Okazaki, T., Roeder, C., and Lehman, D. (2010). “Three-dimensional tests of two-story, one-bay by one- bay, steel braced frames: Specimen design.” Proc. 9 th U.S. National and 10 th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Toronto, Canada. Roeder, C. W., Lehman, D. E., and Yoo, J. H. (2004). “Performance-based seismic design of braced-frame gusset plate connections.” Proc. Connections in Steel Structures V, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Roeder, C. W. and Lehman, D. E. (2008). “Seismic design

and behavior of concentrically braced steel frames.” Structure Magazine, pp. 37-39. Tremblay, R. (2002). “Inelastic seismic response of steel bracing members.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 58, pp. 665-701. Tremblay, R. and Merzouq, S. (2004). “Dual buckling restrained braced steel frames for enhanced seismic

response.” Proc. Passive Control Symposium 2004, Yokohama, Japan. Uriz, P. and Mahin, S. A. (2008). Toward earthquake- resistant design of concentrically braced steel-frame

structures. PEER 2008/08, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Watanabe, A., Hitomi, Y., Saeki, E., Wada, A., and Fujimoto, M. (1988). “Properties of brace encased in buckling- restraining concrete and steel tube.” Proc. Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, Paper No. 6-7-4, pp. 719-724. Yang, F. and Mahin, S. A. (2005). Limiting net section failure in slotted HSS braces. Structural Steel Education Council, Moraga, CA.