Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
1.1 General:
2. From architectural point of view, CBF increases versatility and space savings
because of the smaller cross section as compared to reinforced concrete section.
3. By using hot rolled Steel section, high quality control is achieved and speed of
construction is faster as compared to reinforced concrete structure.
1.1.2
Following are limitations associated with CBF as a lateral load resisting system:
1. CBF systems are usually more flexible in comparison to traditional lateral load
resisting systems.
4. Ordinary concentrically braced frames are not allowed in Seismic zones IV and V
and for buildings with an importance factor greater than unity (I > 1.0) in zone III.
Current code-based seismic design provisions, IS 1893 Part1: Criteria for Earthquake
Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1: General Provisions and Buildings (Fifth Revision
2002) & AISC Seismic Provision for Structural Steel Buildings, (ASCE7 2005) adopts
elastic force/strength-based approach and implicitly accounts for inelastic behavior of
structural system through a response reduction factor R. Generally for ductile design, the
code-based provision adopted value of R for Steel CBF is between 3-4.
1.2 Objectives:
Limitations of code-based design method
1. No consideration of inelastic response:
The current seismic design codes for lateral load resisting systems are still not
based on proper inelastic design methodology. As a result, the significant inelastic
displacement capacity of these systems cannot be fully explored. Elastic design
methodology applied on Steel CBF does not recognize the redistribution of moments in
the inelastic range.
2. Unpredictable failure:
The design procedures do not always lead to the intended failure mode and the
expected ductility under severe ground motions
Performance Based Plastic Design (PBPD) is an emerging seismic design method for
next generation. It is of upmost importance to evaluate or to check the advantage of PBPD
over traditional code based method through a design case study. Hence following
objectives are considered for this study:
1. Design a four storey Steel CBF for high seismicity by using force/strength based
approach of current Indian design standard IS: 1893-2002 (BIS: 2002).
2. Obtaining similar design by using displacement base approach of recent PBPD
method proposed by Chao and Goel (2001).
3. Comparing design as well as their seismic performance through nonlinear static
push over analysis (NSPA).
1.3 Scope of the project:
A four storey Steel CBF under high seismic condition is considered for seismic
design. Due to lack of high capacity/strength of Indian standard hot rolled Steel
sections (SP:6(1)-1964), American Institute of Steel Construction standard
sections (AISC 2005b) with high strength Steel (fy=345Mpa) have been use for
this study.
1.4 Outline of the Project:
The project outline is shown on the next page in the form of flowchart
Conclusions
Chapter 1 deals with Introduction, advantages of Steel CBF, limitations of code based
design provisions for Steel CBF, objectives, scope of project and outline of report.
Chapter 3 deals with design of a four storey Steel CBF for high seismicity by using
force/strength based approach of current Indian design standard IS: 1893-2002 (BIS:
2002).
Chapter 4 deals with design of a four storey Steel CBF for high seismicity by using
displacement base approach of recent PBPD method proposed by Chao and Goel
(2001).
Chapter 5 deals with comparing with design as well as their seismic performance
through nonlinear static push over analysis (NSPA).
Chapter 6 deals with findings of study, conclusions, thrust areas and recommendations
derived from this study.
(a)
(b)
Figure 1.1: Steel CBF used as a structural system
Concentric Braced Frame
CHAPTER 2
A Review of Seismic Design of Steel Concentrically Braced Frames
And Related Research
2.1 Introduction
The design procedures for regular structures specified in the current seismic codes,
such as IS 1893 PART 1 :2000, are mainly based on elastic analyses under seismic
horizontal forces (Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure), without attempting to predict the
inelastic response. These procedures offer considerable simplification and do not require
the designer to use the understanding of structural dynamics. The structures designed by
these procedures may possess sufficient strength and stiffness to satisfy the requirements
of serviceability limit state. However, the design procedures do not always lead to the
intended failure mode and the expected ductility under severe ground motions. The
energy dissipation capacity of the structure designed by these procedures can be less than
that required to prevent collapse under severe ground motions. Therefore, alternative
design procedure based on inelastic structural analysis and the plastic design should be
adopted for the ultimate limit state.
This chapter begins with reviewing and discussing the current seismic design
codes and provisions for steel concentrically braced frames. After that, related past studies
that addressed the problems of current code procedures or proposed new design methods
based on inelastic analysis and plastic design concepts are also reviewed and discussed.
2.2.1 Assumptions
The following are the assumptions in the earthquake resistant design of structures:
1. Impulsive ground motions of earthquake are complex, irregular in character,
changing in period and time and of short durations, they, therefore, may not cause
resonance as visualized under steady state sinusoidal excitations, except in tall
structures founded on deep soft soils.
2. Wind, maximum flood or maximum sea waves will not occur simultaneously with
the earthquake.
3. For static analysis, elastic modulus of materials shall be taken unless otherwise
mentioned.
Ah =
.. (2.1)
Where;
Z = the zone factor as given Table 2 of IS 1893 (Part 1):2002, based on classifying the
country in four seismic zones,
I= Importance factor, depending upon functional use of the structures as given in Table 6
of IS 1893 (part 1) :2002,
R= Response reductions factor, depending on the perceived seismic damage, performance
of the structures, characterized by ductile or brittle deformations, as given in Table 7 of IS
1893 (Part 1):2002.However, the value of (I/R) shall not be greater than 1.0, and
S/g= Average response acceleration coefficient for rock or soil sites as given Fig.2 and
Table 3 of IS 1893 (part 1) :2002.
It is further stipulated in cl.6.4.2 of IS 1893 (part 1) :2002, that for any structure with
undamped natural period of vibrations of the structure (in seconds) T 0.1 second, the
value of Ah will not be taken less than Z/2 whatever be the value of I/R.
VB = Ah W (2.2)
Where;
W is the seismic weight of the building as given in cl.7.4.2 of IS 1893 (Part 1):2002.
Qi =
Where;
Qi = design lateral force at floor i,
10
(2.3)
Mac Rae has proposed the Steel concentrically braced frames are generally
designed to resist lateral force by means of truss action. Design considerations for
columns in these frames are therefore governed by the column axial force while column
11
bending moment demands are generally ignored. However, if the columns cannot carry
moments, then dynamic inelastic time-historey analyses show that a soft-storey
mechanism is likely to occur causing large concentrated deformations in only one storey.
Such large concentrations of damage are not generally seen in real frames since columns
are generally continuous and they possess some flexural stiffness and strength. This paper
develops relationships for column stiffness and drift concentration within a frame based
on pushover and dynamic analyses. It is shown that continuous seismic and gravity
columns in a structure significantly decrease the possibility of large drift concentrations.
An assessment method and example to determine the required column stiffness necessary
to limit the concentration of storey drift is provided.
R.G. Redwood, V.S. Channagiri studied that new provisions of the CSA standard
for steel structures (CAN/CSA-S16.1-M89) dealing with detailing of concentrically
braced frames for seismic design are described and related to requirements of the National
Building Code of Canada. The basis of the new requirements is outlined, and an example
eight-storey frame is used to outline a methodology for the design process for a ductile
braced frame and to illustrate the impact of the provisions.
the surrounding protected structural components. Capacity design seismic provisions have
led to the need for much thicker roof deck panels and more closely spaced diaphragm
connection patterns compared with past practice. This paper provides a description of the
current US seismic design approach and an example as it is applied to a single-storey
building and its diaphragm. An overview of the related aspects of an on-going research
project on the flexibility and ductility of the roof diaphragm in low-rise steel buildings is
also included.
Shaback, B and T.Brown.2003 deduced that the hysteretic behavior of nine square
hollow structural steel (HSS) sections with gusset plate end connections subject to
inelastic cyclic loading has been examined by an experimental investigation.
bracing (Figure 2.1) must be used in opposing pairs to achieve this required balance.
Other bracing configurations, such as the X-brace, multi-storey X-brace and chevron
brace directly achieve this balance. X-bracing is most commonly used with light bracing
on shorter structures. Research shows that the buckling capacity of X-bracing is best
estimated by using one half the brace length when the braces intersect and connect at mid
section (Palmer 2012). However, the inelastic deformation capacity of the X-braced
system is somewhat reduced from that achievable with many other braced frame systems
because the inelastic deformation is concentrated in one-half the brace length because the
other half of the brace cannot fully develop its capacity as the more damaged half
deteriorates. The compressive buckling resistance of most other brace configurations is
best estimated by considering true end-to-end length of the brace with an effective length
factor, K, of 1.0 (i.e., neglecting rotation stiffness of the brace-to-gusset connection.)
Other bracing configurations are possible, and some are expressly prohibited in
AISC 341. K-braces intersect at mid-height of the column. They have the same
14
unbalanced force problem as noted with chevron bracing, but bending moments and
inelastic deformation will occur in the column and may fail, triggering collapse. As a
result, K-bracing is not permitted for the SCBF system. In addition, tension-only bracing
has had relatively poor performance during past earthquakes because the lack of
compressive brace resistance leads to inelastic behavior with slack braces that have no
stiffness until the slack is taken up. The slack braces may lead to progressively increasing
drift and impact loading on the brace, and early brace fracture may occur. Consequently,
tension-only bracing is also prohibited for the SCBF system.
is calculated by equating
monotonically up to the target drift to the energy required by an equivalent elastic Plastic Single Degree of Freedom (EP-SDOF) system to achieve the same state (Fig
2.2). Also, a new distribution of lateral design forces is used (Chao et al, 2007), which is
based on relative distribution of maximum storey shears consistent with inelastic dynamic
response result.
if desired. In cases where significant structural irregularities are present, the method will
provide a good initial design, which may require some refinement through nonlinear static
or dynamic analysis.
PBPD application to concentrically braced frames with degrading hysteretic
behavior due to brace buckling is currently being developed. The results thus far have
been most encouraging
17
CHAPTER 3
Design of a Four Storey Steel CBF for High Seismicity by using Force/Strength
Based
Approach of Current Indian Design Standard IS: 1893-2002 (BIS, 2002)
3.1 Introduction
Seismic designs of structure are based on force/strength based approach used
today and the IS: 1893 (Part I), 2002 code is based on this approach. Seismic designs of
most of the structure are on the basis of lateral force assumed to be equivalent to the
actual loading. It is based on providing the structure with a minimum lateral strength to
resist seismic loads, assuming that the structure will behave adequately in the non-linear
range. The base shear which is the total horizontal force on the structure is calculated on
the basis of structure mass and fundamental period of vibration and corresponding mode
shape. The base shear is distributed along the height of structure in terms of lateral forces
according to code formula. Only some simple constructional detail rules are to be satisfied
as material ductility, member slenderness, etc. This method is usually conservative for
low to medium height buildings with a regular conformation.
Steel CBF is designed as per the IS 800:2007 along with IS 1893 (Part 1):2002 for
site and geometric configurations. In this chapter we formulate the problem and design it
as per the strength based method and obtain the section. For analysis we use ABAQUS
finite element software.
18
Given Data:
Elastic response spectra
Damping factor
5%
Site condition
Soft soil
Material property
4.0
5000
3rd
4.0
5000
2nd
4.0
5000
1st
4.0
5000
Design:
There are two set of steel CBF in X-X direction as lateral load resisting systems for
earthquake in X-direction.
Thus, seismic weight is distributed equally on each set and floor wise seismic weight
on each set of steel CBF is as per Table 3.2
20
Ah =
Importance factor,
Response reduction
ion factor,
Spectral acceleration,
= 2.50
Figure 3.2: Calculation of Sa/g from elastic response spectra of IS: 1893
1893-PartI-2002
Therefore,
21
(kN)
(m)
(kN)
4th
5000
16
1280000
0.534
6675
3rd
5000
12
720000
0.30
3750
2nd
5000
320000
0.133
1662.5
1st
5000
80000
0.033
412.5
=2400000
=1.0
=12500
22
W36X800
(COLUMN)
HSS 16X16X0.625
(RECTANGULAR
BRACE)
23
Ax
2
Bf
Tf
Tw
Iz
Ix
Zx
3
Zy
(in )
(in)
(in)
(in)
(in)
(in )
(in )
(in )
(in )
(in3)
W36X441
130
38.90
17
2.44
1.36
32100
194
1990
1990
368
W36X800
236
42.60
18
4.29
2.38
64700
1060
4200
3650
743
HSS
35
16
0.58
1370
2170
1370
200
200
24
Iy
SECTION
16X16X0.625
CHAPTER 4
Design of a four storey Steel CBF for high seismicity by using displacement based
approach of PBPD method
4.1 Introduction
25
A design case study of 44-storey frames as same as in chapter 3, under the soft soil
so
condition and maximum selected earthquake is considered.
= 5%
26
Where,
= Fundamental time period of linear elastic structure = 0.1 X No of storey = 0.4 sec
t = Displacement ductility ratio
Yield drift
27
0.44
and
= 5%
= 0.09%
% = 0.0
0.009
4
$%
$%
0.009
0.027
(KN)
4th
5000
16
1280000
0.534
8.544
3rd
5000
12
720000
0.30
3.600
2nd
5000
320000
0.133
1.064
1st
5000
80000
0.033
0.132
=2400000
=1.0
=13.34
28
Assuming an inverted
inverted triangular force distribution along the height of the structure
to derive the static storey shears, the lateral force at level i can be expressed as:
Where,
Where,
wi is the weight of the structure at level i
hi is the height of beam level i from the ground,
29
The shear proportioning factor i,, plays an important role in the performancebased plastic design procedure. The factor is directly related to the storey lateral strength
and stiffness along the height of the structure. It also represents the variation of storey
drifts along the height. Therefore, the factor can be used to derive a lateral force
distribution based on inelastic state and to design beams of the structure.
Using the shear proportioning factor, the lateral forces,fi
forces, and fn,, applied at level i and at
the top level n can be written as
Where
and i+1 are the shear proportioning factors at level i and i+1, respectively.
30
(m)
(kN)
(kN)
4th
16
0.53
4140
4140
1.0
16.00
66240
3rd
12
0.30
2330.4
6470.4
1.5628
6.7536
27964.8
2nd
0.13
1
1033.14
7503.54
1.8124
1.9968
8265.12
1st
0.03
256.344
7768
1.8763
0.2556
1025.376
=6.25
=25.006
=103495.
3
Strength Criterion
Fracture Criterion
Compactness Criterion
Strength Criterion:
The braces are designed based on their ultimate state, i.e., tension yielding and
post-buckling,
buckling, to resist total design storey she
shear,
ar, neglecting contribution from
columns. Thus,
31
()*
+,-. * -/, )1
(3.
41
4140
1035
)1
cos
(kN)
1385
41
6470.4
1617.5
2164.15
7503.54
1875.75
2510
7768
2598.30
2598.30
Floor Level
4
2
2
1
Vi
(kN)
41
41
Vi (for 1 CBF )
(kN)
Designing the braces for the maximum storey shear, i.e., 2598.30 kN, we get the
section HSS 12 X 12 X 0.25 having strength of 2675 kN, thus satisfying the
strength criterion.
Design of Beams:
The post-buckling strength of a brace is taken as 0.5 Pcr for in-plane buckling.
Beams intersected by the braces should be designed assuming that no gravity loads are
resisted by the braces. Those beams should also be designed to support vertical and
horizontal unbalanced loads resulting from the force difference in the tension and
compression braces. The design of beams should follow the beam-column design
requirements due to presence of high axial forces. The unbalanced loads resulting from
the braces are as follows:
=
=>
(
?
. 3.
. 3.
Where,
32
Ry is the ratio of the expected yield strength to the specified minimum yield
strength, taken equal to 1
Floor
RyPy
0.5 Pcr
Fh
Fv
Pu
Mu
Level
(kN)
(kN)
(kN)
(kN)
(kN)
(kNm)
4th
2403.96
270.445
2017.67
1400
3000
9600
Ax
2
Bf
Tf
Tw
Iz
Ix
Zx
3
Zy
(in )
(in)
(in)
(in)
(in)
(in )
(in )
(in )
(in )
(in3)
W36X395
116
38.40
16.8
2.20
1.22
28500
142
1750
1710
325
W36X441
130
38.90
17
2.44
1.36
32100
194
1990
1990
368
HSS
10.80
12
0.23
248
384
248
47.6
47.6
33
Iy
SECTION
12X12X0.25
W36X395
(BEAM)
HSS
12X12X0.25
(RECTANGUL
AR BRACE)
34
CHAPTER 5
Comparison of Code-Based and PBPD Designs
5.1 General
This Chapter deals with comparison of Code-Based and PBPD designs so as to
arrive at more realistic and reasonable design.
36
T1 (obtained)
(s)
(s)
Code-based
based design
0.68
0.62
PBPD
0.80
1.05
Design
37
Figure 5.4 shows the unidirectional monotonic pushover load on finite element model of
from NSPA. From this deformed shape a soft-storey formation is observed at second
storey indicating that code-based design fails at higher lateral load.
39
four-storey
storey CBF obtained from NSPA.
40
Figure 5.5: Typical base shear versus roof displacement plot for code-based design of
four-storey CBF obtained from NSPA.
Table 5.2 shows the comparison between design and obtained yield base shear for both
designs from NSPA. From this table it is observed that code-based design is too
conservative as compare to PBPD design. The justification for the same is that PBPD
provides plastic design equations for individual component of steel CBF whereas in codebased design the elements need to be optimized by an iterative procedure such that
capacity is more than demand.
Table 5.2: Comparison between design and obtained yield base shear for both designs
from NSPA.
Vby (Design)
(kN)
(kN)
Code-based design
12500
13750
PBPD
7768
7684
Design
41
CHAPTER 6
Concluding Summary and Scope for Future Work
6.1 Summary
Aim of this study is to compare the traditional code-based and recent performance-based plastic
design method for steel CBF. This comparison is based on lighter section for components of CBF
(light weight design), performance in nonlinear static pushover analysis (NSPA). Following points
from design and analysis can be summarized for the comparison
1. Code-based design is more conservative and heavy weight design as it follows strengthbased approach
2. In displacement-based approach significant inelastic deformation capacity of system is
fully utilized hence PBPD design result in light weight system
3. When fundamental time periods of both design as assumed in respective seismic force
calculations are compared with those obtained from eigen value analysis it is observed
that PBPD design is more accurate with less difference in assumed and obtained value.
4. Nonlinear static pushover analysis of these design shows that code-based design is more
prone to have soft-storey which is undesirable collapse mechanism where as PBPD design
achieves a pre-selected yield mechanism and hence effective in utilizing significant
inelastic deformation capacity. Hence it is suggested that existing design standard should
follow the displacement-based approach rather than elastic force/strength-based approach.
6.2 Scope for future work
This study is only limited to low rise CBF system. Following can be considered as scope for
future work
1. Design comparison for medium to high rise CBF.
2. Comparison of seismic performance of design can be evaluated by using nonlinear
dynamic analysis
42
References:
1) N. Subramanian (2008), Design of steel structures, OXFORD UNIVERSITY
PRESS Publication.
2) BIS, IS 1893 (Part 1): (2002), Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of structures
Part 1 General Provisions and Buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, Fifth Revision.
3) BIS, IS 800:2007, General Construction in Steel Code of practice,Bureau of Indian
Standards, Fifth Revision.
4) Subhash C. Goel and Shin Ho Chao (2008), PERFORMANCE BASED PLASTIC
DESIGN EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT STEEL STRUCTURES,
INTERNATIONAL CODE OF COUNCIL Publication.
5) Soon Sik Lee and Subhash C. Goel (2001), PERFORMANCE BASED OF STEEL
MOMENT RESISTING FRAMES USING TARGET DRIFT AND YIELD
MECHANISM, Research Report UMCEE 01-17,.
6) Shin Ho Chao and Subhash C. Goel (2006), A SEISMIC DESIGN METHOD FOR
STEEL CONCETRIC BRACED FRAMES FOR ENHANCED PERFORMANCE,
4th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering Taipei, Taiwan, Paper No,
227.
7) Swapnil B. Kharmale and Siddhath Ghosh (2012), SEISMIC LATERAL FORCE
DISTRIBUTION FOR DUCTILITY BASED DESIGN OF STEEL PLATE SHEAR
WALLS, Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami, Vol.6, No.1 (2012) 1250004 (24
pages).
8) Macrae, G.A., Y.Kimura, and C.Roeder. (2004) Effect of Column Stiffness on
Braced Frame Seismic Behaviour. Journal of Structural Engineering 130 (3): 381391.
9) Miranda, E.and V.V.Bertero. (1994). Evaluation of Strength Reduction Factors for
Earthquake Resistant Design.Earthquake Spectra 10, no.2:357-379.
10) Redwood, R.G and V.S Channagiri. (1991). Earthquake Resistant Design of
Concentrically Braced Steel Frames. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 18:839850.
43
11) Shaback, B.and T.Brown. (2003). Behaviour of Square Hollow Structural Steel
Braces with End Connections under Reversed Cyclic Axial Loading. Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering 30:745-753.
12) Tremblay, R. M Bruneau, M. Nakashima, H. G. L. Prion, A.Filiatrault, and R.Devall.
(1996). Seismic Design of Steel Buildings: Lessons from the 1995 Hyogo Ken
Nanbu Earthquake.Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 23: 727-756.
13) Tremblay, R, and N.Robert. (2000). Seismic design of Low and Medium Rise
Chevron Braced Steel Frames.Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 27: 1192 -1206.
44