Presentacion Robert Tremblay Marzo 2014

Seismic Design of Steel Structures:
North American Practice &

Challenges for Industrial Buildings
Robert Tremblay
cole Polytechnique de Montral
Colegio de Ingenieros
Santiago, Chile
March 18, 2014
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada
R
ASCE/SEI 7-10
3-1/2
4-1/2
8
7
3-1/4
6
8
Plan
Ductile seismic design
Braced frame systems
Concentrically braced frames
Eccentrically braced frames 341-10
Buckling restrained braced frames
Moment frames and plate wall systems

Heavy industrial buildings: challenges
Ductile Seismic Design

1.5
1.5
1.28 W
1.0
1.0
V/W
V/W
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.0
-1.5
0.0126 h
/ h (%)
0.0
-1.0
W
T = 0.38 s
5% damping
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
1.0
/ h (%)
0.0
-0.5
-1.5
Elastic
0.5
0.5
Horizontal 90 deg.
h
ag (g)
0.0
-0.5
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
Time (s)
Take advantage of the

high ductility of steel
Ductile
response
Fu
Fy
Fracture,
instability,
etc.
1.0
1.0
V/W
0.33 W
0.5
V/W
0.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-0.5
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Vy = 0.25 W
1.0
/ h (%)
/ h (%)
0.0
-1.0
-0.017 h
1.5
1.5
1.28 W
1.0
1.0
V/W
V/W
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.0
-1.5
0.0126 h
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
1.0
/ h (%)
0.0
-0.5
-1.5
Elastic
0.5
/ h (%)
0.0
-1.0
W
T = 0.38 s
5% damping
0.5
Horizontal 90 deg.
h ag (g)
0.0
-0.5
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
Time (s)
10
M. Englehardt
Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal, 1996
1.5
1.0
M / Mpr
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-0.06
Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal, 1996
-0.04
-0.02
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
Plastic Rotation (rad.)

11
Inelastic buckling
with plastic hinge (typ.)
Tension
yielding (typ.)
1.2
0.8
0.4
Plastic
Hinge
P / Py
P
P+
0.0
-0.4
-0.8
HSS 102x76x6.4 - KL/r = 112
-1.2
-8
-4
/ y
12
0.4
0.2
0.2
V/W
V/W
0.4
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
Vy = 0.25 W
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.36 W
0.018 h
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
/ h (%)
1.0
/ h (%)
0.0
-1.0
0.33 W
0.4
0.4
V/W
h
Vy = 0.25 W
V/W
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.4
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
1.0
/ h (%)
/ h (%)
0.0
-1.0
-0.017 h
0.5
Horizontal 90 deg.
T = 0.38 s
5% damping
ag (g)
0.0
-0.5
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
Time (s)
13
Effects of Magnitude and Distance

Earthquakes in California
Site Class B 5% damping
2.5
1.5
M 7.0-7.5
10-20 km
1.5
S a (g)
Sa (g)
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.0
2.0
M 7.0-7.5
30-50 km
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period, T (s)
Period, T (s)
M 6.5-7.0
10-20 km
Sa (g)
0.8
1.0
0.4
0.0
M 6.5-7.0
30-50 km
1.0
S a (g)
1.2
0.5
0.0
M 6.5-7.0
70-100 km
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period, T (s)
Period, T (s)
Period, T (s)
1.0
Sa (g)
S a (g)
1.6
0.5
M 6.0-6.5
30-50 km
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period, T (s)
14
Design Spectra
& Design for Inelastic Response
2.0
1.6
Los Angeles Area
Site Class B
1.2
Sa (g), Cs
Sa (g)
1.6
M6.0 - M7.5
Dist. = 10-100 km
0.8
0.4
Los Angeles Area

Site Class B
1.2
Sa (Elastic)
Cs (OCBF - R = 6.0)
0.8
x 1/R
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Period, T (s)
2.5
3.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Period, T (s)
15
16
Capacity Design Procedure

V=
Poutrelle
(typ.)
Poutre de toit
(typ.)
Feui lle de
tabl ier mtall ique
typ.)
Perimeter
members
Contr eventement
(typ.)
17
Ve
R
Brace
connections Foundations
Poteau
(typ.)
V
Roof
Diaphragm
Bracing
members
Anchor rods
18
Two-Step Capacity Design Procedure:

Grav.
Grav.
E
1. Select Braces:
Design for gravity + E
Check KL/r, b/t, etc. for ductile
response
2. Design other elements :
Grav.
Grav.
>E
Cu
>E
Grav.
C'u
Grav.
Ty
Gusset plates designed in

compression for the expected
brace compressive strength
Gusset plate designed in tension
for the expected brace tensile
strength
Column designed for gravity
plus expected brace tensile
strength
19
Ductile Seismic Force Resisting Systems

Tension
yielding
Plastic
Hinge
Plastic
Hinge (typ.)
Compression
yielding
Tension
yielding
Plastic
Hinge
Plastic
Hinge (typ.)
Shear
yielding
Shear
yielding
Plastic
Hinge (typ.)
Tension
yielding
End-plate
Bending
20
10
ASCE 7-10
AISC 341-10
AISC 360-10
21
NBCC 2010
CSA S16-09
22
11
Building code main objective is to protect life

and prevent structural collapse under ground
motions
In view of high level of ground motion
considered (2% in 50 years) and the difficulty
in predicting ground motions and their
effects on structures
ductile seismic design represents an
effective strategy to achieve code objectives
by controlling the system response and force
demand.
23
24
Control of
Local Buckling
12
Expected (probable)
material strength
Liu, J. et al. (2007). AISC Eng.
25
Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs)

Energy dissipated in bracing members through
tensile yielding and flexural hinging
Tension
yielding (typ.)
Inelastic buckling
with plastic hinge (typ.)
Connections and other members expected to

remain essentially elastic
26
13
27
28
14
29
30
15
Rehabilitation
31
32
Kobe 1995
16
33
Northridge 1994
Photos from Peter Maranian, Brandow and Associates (P. Uriz Thesis, 2005)
34
17
Fracture in
1st cycle at
1 2% hs
1
2
Uriz and Mahin (2004)
Univ. of California, Berkeley
35
/ hs (%)
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.2
P / A gF y
0.8
0.4
0.0
-0.4
-0.8
-1.2
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
/ LH (%)
1.0
1.5
2.0
HSS 254 x 254 x 12

b/t = 18, KL/r = 42
36
18
37
38
19
/ h s (%)
P / Py
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
/ hs (%)
1.0
2.0
3.0
-3.0
-2.0
0.0
/ hs (%)
1.0
2.0
3.0
-3.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
RHS-4
KL/r = 40
b0/t = 17
-0.8
-1.2
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
/ LH (%)
1.0
1.5
RHS-2
KL/r = 40
b0/t = 13
-0.8
-1.2
2.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
/ LH (%)
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
CHS-1
KL/r = 42
b0/t = 30
-0.5
0.0
0.5
/ LH (%)
-1.5
-4.0
0.4
-1.2
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
3.0
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
CHS-2
KL/r = 62
b 0/t = 31
-0.8
-1.2
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
/ L H (%)
0.5
/ LH (%)
1.0
1.5
2.0
/ hs (%)
1.0
0.8
-0.8
1.0
RHS-19
KL/r = 60
b 0/t = 13
-2.0
1.2
-1.0
0.0
/ hs (%)
1.2
-1.5
-1.0
-0.8
1.2
-2.0
-2.0
-1.2
/ hs (%)
P / Py
-1.0
39
1.0
1.5
2.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
W-6
KL/r = 67
b0/t = 5.9
-0.8
-1.2
-3.0
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
/ LH (%)
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
40
20
1.2
0.4
0.0
-0.4
-0.8
-1.2
KL/r = 42
HSS 254x254x12
-6
-4
-2
KL/r = 93
HSS 127x76x4.8
2
-6
-4
-2
KL/r = 142
HSS 76x76x4.8
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
Ductility at Fracture, f
P / AgFy
0.8
10
25
20
15
f = 2.4 + 8.3
10
5
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Brace Slenderness, = (Fy / Fe)0.5
2.5
41
42
21
43
W6
W4
6000
P (kN)
4000
2000
0
3
2000
4000
6000
W4W6
Interstorey Drift Angle (%)
44
22
Design Bracing Configuration

Along any braced line, between 30% & 70% of lateral
load is resisted by tension braces
Tension-only braced frames not permitted
K-bracing not permitted
45
R. Tremblay, cole Polytechnique of Montreal & D. Mitchell, McGill University
46
23
Design Bracing Members

Braces must resist gravity + lateral loads
Pn in tension and compression as per AISC 360-10
KL/r < 200
Section must meet seismic hd limits
For built-up sections, individual components must
meet KL/r limits and stitch subjected to shear under
buckling must meet minimum shear strength
47
LH
KLout 0.9 LH
KLin 0.5 LN
KLout 0.5 LH
KLin 0.5 LN
48
24
Bracing Configuration
Tension-only braced frames permitted
Bracing Members
Section must meets b/t limits that vary with KL/r
49
Design Expected Brace Strengths
P / Py
Texp
Cexp
Cexp
50
25
C'u / AgF y (Ductility = 1.0)
1.0
0.8
Cu (S16-01, n = 1.34)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1.2
Cu (S16-01, n = 1.34)
Cu (AISC 1999)
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
50
100
150
1.0
2.0
2.5
Cu (S16-01, n = 1.34)
C'u (mean)
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1.0
0.8
Cu (S16-01, n = 1.34)
C'u (mean)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.5
1.0
200
KL/r
1.5
0.6
0.0
0.5
0.8
0.0
0.6
C'u / Ag Fy (Ductility = 5.0)
Cu / AgF y
1.0
C'u / AgFy (Ductily = 3.0)
0.0
1.0
50
1.5
100
2.0
150
2.5
200
KL/r
51
Texp
Cexp
Texp = A RyFy
Cexp
Cexp = A (1.12 Fcr) where Fcre = Fcr with RyFy

< A RyFy
Cexp = 0.3 Cexp
52
26
Texp = A RyFy
Cexp = A (1.12 Fcr) ,Fcre = Fcr with RyFy
< A RyFy
Cexp = 0.3 Cexp
53
54
Schimdt and Bratlett (2002)
27
Design Brace Connection

Must resist brace Texp & 1.1 Cexp
Must allow for ductile rotational behavior or
resist 1.1 x brace expected flexural strength
55
56
28
Archambault et al. (1995)

Tremblay and Bolduc (2002)
cole Polytechnique,Montreal
Kobe 1995
57
58
Yang and Mahin (2004)

Univ. of California, Berkeley
29
59
60
30
61
62
Kobe
1995
31
Sabelli (2003)
Sabelli (2003)
Sabelli (2005)
Prototype
63
Test Specimen
L
C-C
TS
2t
2t
35O
Attachment to
load frame:
Gusset
plate
Cover
plate
Cover
plate
Specimen
End Restraint
35
End
Hinge
5182 (min) @ 7937 (max)
Gusset
plate
290
102
Side View
Elevation
64
32
65
Design Columns and Beams

Must resist gravity loads plus two brace force
scenarios:
Upon first buckling & yielding (Texp & Cexp)
In post-buckling range (Texp & Cexp)
Beams in V and inverted-V bracing must be
continuous between columns
Column sections must meet hd
Beam sections must meet md
66
33
Brace force scenarios for columns:
F3
F3
Texp,3
Cexp,3
F2
Cexp,3
F2
Texp,2
F1
F3
Texp,3
F2
Cexp,2
F1
Texp,2
Cexp,2
F1
Texp,1
C exp,1
At Buckling
Texp,1
Cexp,1
Post-Buckling
67
68
Northridge 1994
Photos from Finley 1999
(P. Uriz Thesis, 2005)
34
Taiwan 1999
69
70
35
Brace force scenarios for beams:

1.2 wD+ 1.0 w L
Cexp,x+1
1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L
Cexp,x+1
Texp,x+1
FL,x
Texp,x
Cexp,x
Cexp,x
1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L
Cexp,x+1
Texp,x+1
FL,x
Cexp,x+1
FL,x
FR,x
Cexp,x
FR,x
Texp,x
1.2 wD+ 1.0 w L
Texp,x+1
Texp,x+1
FL,x
FR,x
FR,x
Cexp,x
Texp,x
At Buckling
Texp,x
Post-Buckling
71
5 @ 9000 = 45 000
300
(slab edge)
BF (typ.)
EBF
BRBF
2 @ 4000
= 8000
MRF (typ.)
5 @ 9000 = 45 000
SCBF
5500
ELEVATIONS
PLAN
Gravity loads:
Roof: Dead = 3.2 kPa
Live = 1.0 kPa
Floor: Dead = 3.5 kPa
Partitions = 1.0 kPa
Live = 3.8 kPa
Exterior walls = 1.5 kPa
Seismic Load Data (NCh433):
Zone 2
Soil Type C
A= 0.30 g
In-plane torsion omitted
[mm]
[mm]
Load Combinations:
1.2D + 1.6L
1.2D + 1.0L + 1.4E
0.9D + 1.4E
Seismic weight:
P = 7720 kN (Level 9)
12635 kN (Levels 2-8)
12840 kN (Level 1)
Note: Redundancy factor, ,

and seismic load effects
with overstrength factor, 0,
as specified in ASCE 7-10
are not considered.
Steel:
BRB cores: Fyc = 260-290 MPa
Other members: Fy = 345 MPa
72
36
73
74
Static method of analysis
37
Brace Design
75
Column Design
599
599
2907
2001
169
-0.9 x 644 (D) 2492
= 1913
7007
599
2907
1103
2001
4890
169
1103
4890
169
7007
599
169
4092
4437
4092
2591
4749 + 1.2 x 644 (D)

+ 1.0 x 372 (L)
= 5893
7916
7916
At Buckling
76
38
Column Design
856
856
856
2907
2907
331
600
4890
600
812
812
-0.9 x 644 (D) 662
= 82
1103
812
7007
7007
856
4890
812
1227
5136 + 1.2 x 644 (D)

+ 1.0 x 372 (L)
= 6280
1227
4437
777
6086
6085
Post-Buckling
77
Beam Design
1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L= 8.71
1498
1498
-1498
1103
2907
1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L= 8.71
1498
1210
2907
Mu = 2785
2001
1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L= 24.0
2907
1077
4890
842
2001
-939
7007
4092
842
4890
Mu = 243
1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L= 24.0
4890
939
331
-2565
600
Mu = 243
1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L= 24.0
939
Mu = 3939
2907
1103
-2800
1210
331
1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L= 24.0
1077
1210
-1210
600
939
Mu = 759
556
-556
7007
4890
556
1227
556
Mu = 3896
[kN,m]
At Buckling
Post-Buckling
78
39
Consider more realistic brace KL
21
60
+
00
45
/Hi
e
ng
4000
0+
75
/-
41.6
9000
W610 Beam
Bolted End
Plate Connection
Brace sizes are reduced, increasing T*, reducing seismic loads

T* = 0.55 s -> 0.65 s
C = 0.119 -> 0.093 (22% decrease in seismic loads)
79
80
40
SCBF
2 @ 4000
= 8000
5500
81
Eccentrically Braced Frames

Energy is dissipated through shear or flexure
in link beams
Plastic
Hinge (typ.)
Shear
yielding
Connections and other members (including beams

outside links) expected to remain essentially elastic
82
41
Filiatrault et al.
83
84
Residential buildings
Montreal
Martoni Cyr
42
Hockey Canadian, Montreal

85
Wellington, New-Zealand 2013
86
43
Built-up rectangular tubular link beams
Contreventement non requis

pour le segment ductile !
Berman, J.W, and Bruneau, M. 2008. Tubular Links for

Eccentrically Braced Frames I: Finite Element Parametric Study.
ASCE J. Struct. Eng., Vol. 134, No. 5, pp. 692-701.
87
System originally developed by Prof. Povov with
Takanashi &
Roeder
1976
Roeder
1977
Malley
1983
Kasai
1986
Ricles
1987
Engelhardt
1989
+ others
88
44

e
= p L/e
V
e
V
Pinned
connection
(typ.)
V=2M/e
= p L/e
Rigid
connection
(typ.)
Symmetrical
Pf 0 in ductile links
Pinned beam-tocolumn joints
Shorter beam spans
Good clearance
L
89
Design Link Beams

Resistance can be governed by shear (short links) or
flexure (long links). Resistances affected by axial load:
Section must meet hd (md for flanges if e < 1.6 Mp/Vp )

e > d; upper limit on e applies in presence of axial load
Must meet limits on plastic rotation (p): from 0.02 rad
for e < 1.6 Mp/Vp to 0.08 rad for e > 2.6 Mp/Vp
Need for end and intermediate stiffeners; depend on
yielding mechanism & p
90
45
For center links (M = 0 at e/2):

For shear yielding: Vn = Vp
For flexural yielding: Vn = 2 Mp/e
e/2
e/2
VL
ML
ML
VL
ML
Shorter links generally preferred:

Higher lateral frame stiffness
Higher energy dissipation capacity
Less stringent (md for flanges)
Easier to design beams outside links
p
hs
p= p L/e
p
hs
91
p= p L/e
92
46
Design Adjusted link shear strength

Vadj = 1.25 RyVn (I-shaped links)
= 1.40 RyVn (built-up tubular links)
May be multiplied by 0.88 for beams outside links
and for columns in structures more than 3 storeys
93

Must resist gravity loads plus Vadj
Column sections must meet hd. Beam outside links
and braces must meet md section requirements
L/2
e/2
e/2
L/2- e/2
Vadj
adj
Vadj
Pbrace
Pbeam
Vadj
Vbeam
Vadj
Mbeam
P col
94
47

Must resist gravity loads plus Vadj
Column sections must meet hd. Beam outside links
and braces must meet md section requirements
L/2
e/2
L/2- e/2
e/2
Vadj
adj
Vadj
Pbrace
Pbeam
Vadj
Vbeam
Vadj
Mbeam
P col
95
5 @ 9000 = 45 000
300
(slab edge)
BF (typ.)
EBF
BRBF
8 @ 4000 = 32 000
MRF (typ.)
5 @ 9000 = 45 000
SCBF
5500
PLAN
Gravity loads:
Roof: Dead = 3.2 kPa
Live = 1.0 kPa
Floor: Dead = 3.5 kPa
Partitions = 1.0 kPa
Live = 3.8 kPa
Exterior walls = 1.5 kPa
Seismic Load Data (NCh433):
Zone 2
Soil Type C
A= 0.30 g
In-plane torsion omitted
[mm]
ELEVATIONS
[mm]
Load Combinations:
1.2D + 1.6L
1.2D + 1.0L + 1.4E
0.9D + 1.4E
Seismic weight:
P = 7720 kN (Level 9)
12635 kN (Levels 2-8)
12840 kN (Level 1)
Steel:
BRB cores: Fyc = 260-290 MPa
Other members: Fy = 345 MPa
96
48
EBFs Modular Links

with N. Mansour & C. Christopoulos, Univ. of Toronto
97
98
49
99
100
50
101
102
51
Repair using Self-compacting concrete

(Sikacrete-08 SCC)
Repair of main transverse surface
cracks using Low-viscosity injection
resin (Sikadur 52)
103
104
52
Comparisons for cycles at 0.08 rad.:
( reinforcement plates)
(3/16 reinforcement plates)
105
106
53
Buckling Restrained Braced Frames

Energy dissipated in bracing members through
tensile and compression axial yielding
Unbonding
Material
Steel
Tube
Steel
Core
Mortar
Fill
Cross-Section
P
P

107
108
Wakabayashi et al. (1973)
Watanabe et al. (1988)
54
Buckling Restrained Braced Frames

1.5
V / Vy
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-4.0
cole Polytechnique 1998
-2.0
0.0
/ y
2.0
4.0
Qubec City (1999)

109
110
55
Vancouver (RJC)
Qubec City (1999)

Montreal (Canam)
111
20000
Roof / hn
0.8
0.4
0.0
-0.4
-0.8
0.8
0.4
0.0
-0.4
-0.8
V Base (kN)
Roof / hn
0.8
0.4
0.0
-0.4
-0.8
Roof / hn
CBF
CBF
10000
0
-10000
20000
BRB-L
V Base (kN)
BRB-L
10000
0
-10000
BRB-S
-20000
.
20000
BRB-S
V Base (kN)
Accel. (g)
-20000
0.2
0.0
10000
0
-10000
-0.2
-20000
0
10
15
Time (s)
20
25
-1.0
0.0
1/ hs (%)
1.0
112
56
Global buckling:
Concrete Fill
EIr , dr
P
P
a0
Core
L
Local (core) buckling:
Gap
P
P
113
All-steel BRBs
2.0
V/Vy
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
10
114
57
Eryasar & Topkaya 2010
115
Usami et al. 2008
116
58
117
118
59
119
120
60
Specialized suppliers (U.S.)
http://www.corebrace.com/
http://www.starseismic.net/
http://www.unbondedbrace.com/
121

No special requirements (BRB have nearly symmetrical
response)
May be controlled by drift limit or available BRB
capacities
122
61
Design BRB members

Select Ac:
BRB assumed not resist gravity loads
=> required axial strength from lateral loads only
Pn = AcFyc (compression & tension) with = 0.9
Notes: use lower bound for Fyc
round-off Ac
Verify availability of BRB and test data

Determine stiffness factor KF for analysis
= KBrace / (EAc/Lc/c)
21
60
00
45
+/
123
4000
41.6
9000
Lc/c
Lc
124
62
Qualification tests of BRBs:

Two cyclic tests: individual BRB + sub-assemblage
Specimen Pysc within 50-120% of prototype
Specimen design, fabrication and quality control as for
prototype
Test displacements based on design storey drift bm
Tests used to demonstrate performance of the member

and connections and to provide design data
125
Design BRB adjusted axial strength

Adjusted (max) brace strengths from tests:
Tadj = AcFyc
Cadj = AcFyc
with and from C and T at the maximum test
deformations
Note: use upper bound for Fyc
2.0
Tmax
P / Py
1.0
0.0
-1.0
Cmax
-2.0
-8.0
-4.0
0.0
4.0
8.0
y
126
63

Must resist gravity loads plus forces induced when
the braces reach their adjusted strengths
Section must meet hd (md for flanges if e < 1.6 Mp/Vp )
127
Beam Design
Column Design
C adjx+1
Tadj,x
FL,x
FR,x
Tadj,x
Tadj
Cadj
C adj,x
C adjx+1
Tadj,x
FL,x
FR,x
Cu
Chevron
BRB
C adj
C adj
C adj
Tu
0.9 w D
Cu
Tu
Tadj,x
C adj,x
and
1.2 w D+ 1.6 w L
C adj
128
64
Communication with BRB suppliers

At design stage, verify:
Range of Fyc
Strength factors &
Stiffness factors KF
Py range for which test data is available
On drawings, specify:
Minimum Py (or Ac & Fyc), with tolerances
Factors , and KF
Reqd test brace axial deformations
Fyc = 260-290 MPa

KF = 1.5
129
130
BRBF
R = 6.0 (as EBF)

T = 0.99 s
Q0 = 871 kN / Frame
65
SCBF
BRBF
131
Moment Resisting Frames

Energy dissipated by plastic hinging in beams
and limited shear yielding in column panel
zones. Plastic hinging in columns permitted at
the base and in single-storey structures.

132
66
Design Beams
Section must meet hd
Must resist expected shear demand upon hinging
Must be laterally braced
L
pb
1.1 R y Mpb
1.1 Ry M pb
Vh
Vh
L'
L' = L - 2 x - d c
Vh = wL' / 2 + 2.2 R y Mpb / L'
133
Design Columns
Section must meet hd
Must satisfy weak beam-strong column criteria
except for:
Columns with Puc < 0.3 AcFy in single-storey buildings or
at the top storey of multi-storey buildings;
Columns with Puc < 0.3 AcFy when their total shear
contribution < 20% of total storey shear resistance and
33% of storey shear resistance along their MF line; or
Columns that have shear capacity to demand ratio 50%
gretaer than in the storey above.
134
67
Weak beam-strong column criteria:
M*: projected at member

center lines
Cf, i+1
w
1.1 Ry Mpb
w
Vh
M'rc, i+1
1.1 Ry M pb
1.1 Ry M pb
Vh
Vh
1.1 Ry M pb
Vh
M'rc, i
L'
Cf, i
L' = L - 2 x - d c
x + dc /2
x + d c/2
Vh = wL' / 2 + 2.2 R y Mpb / L'
135
136
Design Column panel zone

Must meet: t > (dz + wz)/90
Shear strength, Rn:
Vh
1.1 Ry Mpb
1.1 Ry Mpb
Vh
x + d c/2
x + dc /2
68
Design Beam-to-column connections

Must accommodate 4% storey drift angle
Measured flexural resistance at column face at 4%
storey drift angle > 80% Mpb
Performance considered as demonstrated if prequalified connections are used; otherwise must be
demonstrated through physical cyclic testing
V
hs/2
hs/2
L/2
L/2
137
Design requirements
Welding requirements
Bolting requirements
Requirements for 6
pre-qualified connections
http://www.aisc.org
138
69
Reduced Beam Section
Bolted Flange Plate
Welded Unreinforced Flange

Welded Web
Bolted End Plate
Conxtech Conxl
Kaiser Bolted Bracket

139
140
70
MRF
Example
141
142
71
At Level 1:
M*pb = 656 + 738 = 1394 kN-m
143
144
72
145
Steel Plate Shear Walls

Energy dissipated through web plate (infill panel)
yielding and plastic hinging in beams and at the
base of columns

146
73
ING St-Hyacinthe
Quirion Metal
Louis Crpeault
Groupe Technika
147
148
74
University of Alberta (1997)
149
5000
4000
2F Shear Force (kN)
3000
2000
1000
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
Interstory Drift (% )
5000
4000
Base Shear Force (kN)
3000
2000
1000
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-2
Work by Bruneau, Tsai et al.
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
Interstory Drift (% )
150
75
MF + web plate
Vmf
=
Vw
Distribution of Vx from analysis

Infill panel designed for 100% Vx
Beams Mpb such that VMF = 2 Mpb/hs > 0.25 Vx
151
152
Design of web plate
76
Design of beams (HBE)

and columns (VBE)
qi
i+1
V bl,i
(T sin ) i+1
(T cos )i+1
M' pb,i
C b,i
C b,i
(T cos ) i
M'pb,i
V br,i
Cb,i
Vbr,i
h i+1
Fr,i
M'pb,i
(T sin ) i
hi
L - 2 x - dc
Ti = t w,i Fy
x + dc /2
2
C b,i = [ (T h sin )
i+1
+ (T h sin ) ] / 2
i
153
Beam-to-Column Connections
Type LD MRF
CP groove welds
Backing bar removed
Run-off tabs removed
Reinforcing fillet welds
Tr = 60% Tr in Cl. 21.3
qi
Vbl,i
i+1
M'pbl,i
i+1
Pbr,i
bl,i
M'pbr,i
V br,i
Beams:
Class 1 or 2
L - 2 x - dc
Beam
Columns:
Class 1, W Shapes
154
77
Corner cut-outs
Purba, R. and Bruneau, M. 2007.

Design Recommendations for
Perforated Steel Plate Shear
Walls. Report MCEER-07-0011,
SUNY Buffalo, NY.
Vian, D. and Bruneau, M. 2004. Testing of Special
LYS Steel Plate Shear walls. Proc. 13th WCEE,
Vancouver, BC. Paper No. 978.
155
156
Optimization of infill plates

Use of thin infill plates
0.9 mm thick ASTM A1008 (cold-rolled, carbon, commercial

steel sheet)
Berman, J.W. and Bruneau, M. 2005. Experimental
Investigation of Light-Gauge Steel Plate Shear
Walls. ASCE J. of Struct. Eng., 131, 2, 259-267.
78
Perforated infill plates
Purba, R. and Bruneau, M. 2007. Design

Recommendations for Perforated Steel
Plate Shear Walls. Report MCEER-07-0011,
SUNY Buffalo, NY.
Vian, D. and Bruneau, M. 2004. Testing of Special

LYS Steel Plate Shear walls. Proc. 13th WCEE,
Vancouver, BC. Paper No. 978.
157
Perforation
(typ.)
45o
45o
> 4 rows
V
> 4 rows
ia
g
Li
Sd
D
S
D / Sdiag > 0.6
di
ag
D < * < D + 0.7 Sdiag
158
79
159
160
80
161
Warning!
Only basic design requirements have been
discussed; several other requirements must be
applied including those related to loads and
load combinations, demand critical welds,
protected zones, bracing, quality control, etc.
Only the systems designed and detailed for
high ductility have been introduced; provisions
also exist for other systems exhibiting
moderate and limited ductility that may be more
appropriate for some applications.
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal
162
81
Bruneau, M., Sabelli, R., and Uang C.-M.

(2003) Ductile Design of Steel Structures, 2nd
ed., Wiley
AISC. (2013) Seismic Design Manual, 2nd ed.,

AISC
Filiatrault, A., Tremblay, R., Christopoulos,

C., Foltz, B., and Pettinga, D. (2013)
Elements of Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 3rd ed.,
Presses Internationales Polytechnique (PIP)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal
163
164
82
165
Seismic Design of Heavy Industrial

Buildings : Challenges
166
83
Observations / Issues:
Structures are not buildings:
Irregular structures with heavy point masses and loads
and low damping
Design is process driven and structure will likely be
modified to accommodate changes to the process
Equipment may interact with the structure

Structures may have limited redundancy

Damage under severe earthquakes must be limited:
Structures may contain hazardous material
No or short downtimes
Application of ductile seismic systems not practical,
often impossible
Current building code provisions not suitable
167
Possible avenues:
Ductility (or alternative similar approach) needed to accommodate
uncertainty in ground motions and seismic response
1. Simple code provisions to control inelastic demand:

low R factors , use of dynamic analysis, etc.
2. Use of ductile anchorage systems with minimum
stretch lengths in combination with shear keys
3. Use ductile fuses in key structural elements to
control the force demand
4. Where applicable, use sliding or rocking systems to
control input
Above avenues are listed in order of ease of implementation
implementation and flexibility for future process changes;
however, the latest ones could be more effective
168
84
In Canada, industrial structures are buildings and National

Building Code (NBCC) applies.
New Annex proposed for inclusion in CSA S16-14 and which
would be referenced in NBCC 2015:
169
Recent related research work:

1.
2.
3.
4.
Demand prediction from RS analysis

Use/design of ductile anchorage
Ductile structural fuses
Multi-tiered braced frames
170
85
Demand Prediction from RS Analysis
171
Plan dimensions: 36 m x 60 m x 40 m
Heavy equipment, including 1200t & 750t tanks
Irregularities in mass and stiffness
Montreal Site Class C
Static, Response Spectrum & Linear response history
analyses
172
86
Structure has a large number of contributing modes
140
STAT-CNBC
STAT-ASCE
SPECTRALE
TH-MDIANE
TH-84e CEN
120
Displacement (mm)
173
100
80
60
40
20
0
Level
174
87
Use & Design of Ductile Anchors
22 400
16 800
5600
2 x 40t cranes
3 sites: Montreal, Vancouver & Seattle

25 000
1675
Seismic force demand from linear

response history analysis
1675
Ductile anchors at column bases
175
P/R yPy 1.2

1.0
Strength ( = -1)
Strength ( = 1)
0.8
0.6
0.4
Stability ( = 1)
0.2
Stability ( = -1)
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
M/R yM p
-0.4
-0.6
176
88
Elastic time history analysis
SPEC TH-MedTH-84th
SPEC TH-MedTH-84th
Analysis method
Stress Ratio (%)
149%
120%
115%
102%
Ext. base col.

Top column
150%
0.4
50%
156%
93%
n.a.
115%
76%
100%
0.2
0.0
STAT
200%
142%
86%
0.0%
0.6
Crane level
Roof level
160%
94%
0.2%
)
0.8
Stress Ratio (%)
0.4%
Acceleration (g)
0.6%
1.00%
0.91%
0.88%
0.79%
0.78%
0.70%
1.01%
0.93%
c/h , r/h (%)
0.8%
SPEC TH-Med TH-84th
Analysis method
1.0%
SPEC TH-Med TH-84th
Analysis method
Seattle (Site Class D)

Crane level
Roof level
STAT
0%
STAT
Analysis method
1.2%
0.51
0.52
n.a.
121%
106%
0.0
STAT
50%
120%
107%
0.0%
0.2
0.57
0.72
0.2%
Ext. base col.

Top column
100%
0.4
0.37
0.42
0.4%
150%
Crane level
Roof level
0.44
0.52
0.6%
0.6
0.44
0.42
Crane level
Roof level
0.46
0.53
0.8%
0.71%
0.67%
0.70%
0.66%
0.67%
0.63%
0.87%
0.81%
c/h , r/h (%)
1.0%
Acceleration (g)
Vancouver (Site Class C)
STAT
SPEC TH-Med TH-84th
0%
STAT
SPEC TH-Med TH-84th
Analysis method
Analysis method
177
Ductile anchorage at column bases
total =e +i
A fuse
Fvertical
Rsh Fy , fuse
e =total/R
i =total/(1 R)
i = xH/h
total =e +i
e =total/R
i =total/(1 R)
=i xh/H
L=/ =/0.03
178
89
Inelastic time history analysis
1
4
Spring for stability of

analysis
Anchor rod
179
180
90
Crane level
Roof level
1.5%
1.14%
1.14%
1.77%
1.77%
0.5%
1.56%
1.38%
1.0%
1.40%
1.24%
c/h , r/h (%)
2.0%
TH-MD
TH-84e CEN
TH-MD
TH-84e CEN
0.0%
With anchor
yielding
Without anchor
yielding
181
182
NCh2369 (2003)
Is 8db or 250
mm suitable for
all applications?
91
183
Other buildings to be examined

Chemical Industry
HeadFrame (Mining)
184
92
Pipe Racks
Conveyor Towers
185
186
Tank Supporting Structures
93
Ductile
Structural
Fuses
187
1.5
Brace Fuse Test 3CT
Without Fuse
With Fuse
25.4 bolts
@ 80x80 (typ.)
280
PL 6x63x250
(2 sides)
40
(typ.)
V / Vy
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
200
64 hole
(4 sides)
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
/ h (%)
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.5
Brace Fuse Test 4CT
Without Fuse
With Fuse
133
200
64 x 335 slotted hole

(4 sides)
V / Vy
1.0
0.5
271
133
0.0
HS 102x102x4.8
-0.5
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
/ h (%)
188
94
Fuses for
HSS braces
Tu
Tf
Cf
Cu
LF
P
TuF
Tf
Cf
Cu
Lc
A
C/T
Tu
Tf
C/T
Cf
Steel Tube
Steel Core
Cu
Mortar Fill
Section A
LF
P
T
TuF
Tf
Cf
CuF
189
/ hn (%)
Without Brace Fuses

With Brace Fuses
1.0
0.0
-1.0
ag (g)
0.2
0
M7.0 1989 Loma Prieta

Standford Univ. 360o
-0.2
10
15
20
Time (s)
0.5
1.0
V NBCC
V/W
P / Tu
0.5
0.0
0.0
V NBCC
-0.5
Without Brace Fuses

With Brace Fuses
-0.5
-1.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
/ y
1.0
2.0
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
B / h n (%)
0.5
1.0
190
95
Angle with
reduced section
HSS brace
Buckling
restraining box
Cut in
HSS
A
bf
Lf
3.75 m
W360x347 (typ.)
Frame support
(typ.)
Loading
arm
W310x179 (typ.)
Typ.
Lt Lw
191
192
1000 kN
Dynamic
actuator
Pin
(typ.)
Brace
fuse
Brace
studied
Pin
(typ.)
Horizontal
reaction block
6.0 m
96
1.5
Brace Fuse Test 5CC
Without Fuse
With Fuse
25.4 bolts
@ 80x80 (typ.)
280
PL 6x63x250
(2 sides)
40
(typ.)
V / Vy
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-3.0
5-6
Cut
-1.0
0.0
/ h (%)
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.5
Brace Fuse Test 6CT
Without Fuse
With Fuse
1034
V / Vy
1.0
Brace
Fuse
-2.0
280
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
/ h (%)
193
194
97
195
196
Fuses in W-Shapes
(Canam Group, Montreal)
98
197
198
99
1.2
1.2
Tu
Tu
0.8
0.8
0.4
Design
P / AFy
P / AFy
0.4
199
0.0
Design
0.0
Design
-0.4
-0.4
Design
Cu
Cu
-0.8
-0.8
Test 1 - LF/LH = 0.11
-1.2
-5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0
0.0
/ hs
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Test 3 - LF/LH = 0.07

-1.2
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
/ hs
1.0
2.0
3.0
200
100
Multi-Tiered Braced Frames
201
X-braced CBF vs Multi-tiered CBFs

Drift (% hn )
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
= 4.2
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
Drift at h = 10.0 m
Drift at h = 6.8 m
Drift (% hn )
1.50
1.00
0.50
= 6.8
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
= 1.6
-1.50
Accel. (g)
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
Time (s)
15.0
20.0
202
101
2-tiered CBFs
Designed in accordance with AISC 341-10
SCBF R = 6.0
Los Angeles, CA - Site class D
Braces: HSS 102x102x6.4

Columns: W310x174
Strut: W250x58
Design Storey Drift (Cd/H) = 0.86% < 2%
203
204
102
Design Storey (Cd)
1
H2
Mc1
Vc2
Tu2 C
u2
2
Vc1
Mc1
H1
Vc2
1
Cu1
Vc2
Mc1
Tu1
M c1
Vc1
Mc1
Vc1
Vc
Frame Lateral
Deformation
Member Forces
(axial loads in columns not shown)
Mc
Column Shear &

Bending Moment
205
206
103
Conclusions
Design provisions to achieve ductile seismic
performance for building steel structures are
now available for application in practice
Design objective is to prevent structural
collapse and structural damage & residual
deformations are expected
Some issues still need to be addressed
Application of this design approach not
suitable for heavy industrial applications;
specific design provisions needed for these
structures
207
104

Presentacion Robert Tremblay Marzo 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Presentacion Robert Tremblay Marzo 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seismic Design of Steel Structures:

North American Practice &

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

Moment frames and plate wall systems

Ductile Seismic Design

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

Take advantage of the

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal, 1996

Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal, 1996

Plastic Rotation (rad.)

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Effects of Magnitude and Distance

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Los Angeles Area

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

Capacity Design Procedure

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

Two-Step Capacity Design Procedure:

Gusset plates designed in

Ductile Seismic Force Resisting Systems

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

Building code main objective is to protect life

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

Liu, J. et al. (2007). AISC Eng.

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs)

Connections and other members expected to

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

HSS 254 x 254 x 12

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

Brace Slenderness, = (Fy / Fe)0.5

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

Interstorey Drift Angle (%)

R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada

Design Bracing Configuration