Modeling SCB frames using

beam-column elements
Vesna Terzic
UC Berkeley

January 2013
 Agenda
Different modeling approaches of SCBFs
Line-element model of SCBF
3 different models of gusset plate connections will be considered
and demonstrated on an example
Comparison of seismic responses of a SCBF considering
different gusset plate connection models
Sensitivity of the model to geometric imperfection of the
brace and the number of elements used to model the brace
Consideration of further simplifications of the model
(demonstrated on an example)
Conclusions and summary
Q & A with web participants
 Introduction

Special Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBF) are

commonly used as the seismic resisting system in
buildings.
During large seismic events they may experience
buckling of the braces.
Inelastic deformation of the braces place inelastic
deformation demands on beams, columns and
connections.
Modeling approaches for SCBF

Continuum models (shell or brick elements)

Accurate
Computationally expensive

Line-element models (beam-column elements

and zero-length elements)
Simple = Computation time significantly
reduced
Accurate simulation of global behavior
Reasonable predictions of many local
behaviors
 OpenSees elements used in
Line-element models
Braces, beams and columns can be modeled with
force-based (FB) fiber beam-column elements.
Rigidity of the gusset, gusset-
to-beam, and gusset-to-column
connections can be modeled
with rigid elastic elements.
Beam-column connections of
shear tab type can be modeled
with zero-length rotational
spring model (Liu & Astaneh-
Asl, 2004)
 OpenSees elements used in
Line-element models
FBE
Gusset plates (GP) connection can be
modeled in two ways:
1. Force-based fiber elements (Uriz
& Mahin, 2008)
2. Rotational hinge (Hsiao et al.,
2012)

Lavg=(L1+L2+L3)/3
 Analytical Predictions

Uritz & Mahin, 2008 Hsiao et al., 2012

 Example
One story-one bay SCBF with chevron
configuration of braces
Beams: W27x84

180 in.
Columns: W14x176
Braces:HSS10x10x0.625 360 in.

Gusset plate: tapered plate with t=1.375 in

Beam-column connections are shear tab
connections (not designed for the purpose of this
example)
Buckling of HSS braces

Hsiao et al. 2013

 OpenSees model 3D model
Y
Shear-tab connections are
modeled as pins
321 421 4 422 521 Braces are modeled:
3 5 with 10 FB elements.
322 431 432 522
31 51 Corotational geometric
3201+#El transformation.
3101+#El
Quadratic out-of-plane
imperfection (Leff/1000)

12 21 Gusset plate connection

3101 3201
13 23 modeled in following
X
ways:
1 2 1. FB element
Nonlinear FB elements 2. Out-of-plane
Rigid elastic elements rotational spring
3. Pin
Nodes
Pinned connection
 OpenSees model

All nonlinear elements are modeled using Steel02

wrapped with Fatigue material
3 integration points (IP) are used for braces and
beams and 4 IPs are used for columns
Nonlinear rotational spring is modeled using
zero-length element and Steel02 material
assigned to it.
All rigid elements are modeled with elastic beam-
column elements with 10 times bigger A and I
than that of the corresponding element.
 OpenSees model - loads

Loads:
Gravity
Ground motion with its two components
(horizontal and vertical)
1.5
Ground motion [g]

1
0.5

0
0.5
1

1.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time [sec]
 Seismic performance of SCBF with
different gusset plate connections
Base shear vs. displacement

Spring Spring
1500 FBE 1500 FBE
pin
1000 1000

500 500
Force [kip]

Force [kip]
0 0

500 500

1000 1000

1500 1500

1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1 0.5 0 0.5 1

Disp. [in] Disp. [in]

Note: period is ~ the same for all three types of models: T=0.156 sec
 Seismic performance of SCBF with
different gusset plate connections
Story drift
0.6 Spring
Story Drift [%]

0.4 FBE

0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time [sec]

0.6 Spring
Story Drift [%]

0.4 FBE
pin
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time [sec]
 Seismic performance of SCBF with
different gusset plate connections
Floor acceleration
Floor acceleration [g]

1.5 FBE
1 Spring

0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time [sec]
Floor acceleration [g]

1.5 FBE
1 Spring
pin
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time [sec]
 Seismic performance of SCBF with
different gusset plate connections
Axial force deformation at the middle of the left brace
left brace left brace
Spring Spring
1000 FBE 1000 FBE
pin
Axial Force [kip]

Axial Force [kip]

500 500

0 0

500 500

1000 1000

0.02 0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.01 0 0.01

Axial Strain [in/in] Axial Strain [in/in]
 Seismic performance of SCBF with
different gusset plate connections
Stress-strain of a fiber at the midd cross-section of the left brace
left brace left brace
60 60

40 40

20 20
Stress [ksi]

Stress [ksi]
0 0

20 20

40 40 Spring
Spring FBE
FBE pin
60 60
0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.02 0 0.02
Strain [in/in] Strain [in/in]
 Summary

GP connections modeled with either FBE or

rotational spring provide similar global and local
responses of the system.
FBE element is simpler to model (input
information are t, Ww) than rotational spring
(input information are t, Ww and Lavg)
Pinned GP connection results in great loss of
accuracy and is not recommended for estimating
a seismic performance of SCBF under large
earthquakes that can induce the buckling of the
braces.
 Effect of initial imperfection on
the results GPC = FBE
Geometric Max. Drift Max. Acc.
Global responses
imperfection [%] [g]
p=1%Leff 1%Leff 0.62 1.33
1500 p=0.2%Leff
p=0.1%Leff 0.2%Leff 0.59 1.56
p=0.05%Leff
1000 0.1%Leff 0.54 1.59
500 0.05%Leff 0.52 1.61
Force [kip]

500

1000

1500

1 0.5 0 0.5 1
Disp. [in]

Note: compression elements usually have constriction tolerance of 0.1%Leff

 Effect of initial imperfection on
the results GPC = FBE
Local responses

left brace right brace

p=1%Leff p=1%Leff
1000 p=0.2%Leff 1000 p=0.2%Leff
p=0.1%Leff p=0.1%Leff
p=0.05%Leff p=0.05%Leff
Axial Force [kip]

Axial Force [kip]

500 500

0 0

500 500

1000 1000

0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005
Axial Strain [in/in] Axial Strain [in/in]
 Effect of number of FBE used to
model the brace GPC = FBE
Global responses

noEle=2
1500 noEle=4
noEle=8
noEle=16
1000
Number of Max. Drift Max. Acc.
500 elements [%] [g]
Force [kip]

2 0.55 1.59
0
4 0.54 1.59
500 8 0.54 1.59
1000 16 0.54 1.59

1500

1 0.5 0 0.5 1
Disp. [in]
 Effect of number of FBE used to
model the brace GPC = FBE
Local responses
left brace right brace

noEle=2 noEle=2
1000 noEle=4 1000 noEle=4
noEle=8 noEle=8
noEle=16 noEle=16

Axial Force [kip]

Axial Force [kip]

500 500

0 0

500 500

1000 1000

0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0.03 0.02 0.01 0

Axial Strain [in/in] Axial Strain [in/in]

To capture failure of the brace it is suggested to use 10-20 elements

(Uriz & Mahin 2008)
 3D vs. 2D frame GP connection
modeled with rotational spring

Global responses

2D
1500 3D

1000
Spatial Max. Drift Max. Acc.
500 dimension [%] [g]
Force [kip]

2D 0.591 1.569
0
3D 0.586 1.554
500

1000

1500

1 0.5 0 0.5 1
Disp. [in]
 3D vs. 2D frame GP connection
modeled with rotational spring
Local responses

left brace right brace

2D 2D
1000 3D 1000 3D
Axial Force [kip]

Axial Force [kip]

500 500

0 0

500 500

1000 1000

0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005
Axial Strain [in/in] Axial Strain [in/in]
 3D vs. 2D frame GP connection
modeled with FBE

Global responses

2D
1500 3D

1000
Spatial Max. Drift Max. Acc.
500 dimension [%] [g]
Force [kip]

0 2D 0.58 1.60
3D 0.54 1.60
500

1000

1500

1 0.5 0 0.5 1
Disp. [in]
 3D vs. 2D frame GP connection
modeled with rotational spring
Local responses

left brace right brace

2D 2D
1000 3D 1000 3D
Axial Force [kip]

Axial Force [kip]

500 500

0 0

500 500

1000 1000

0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005
Axial Strain [in/in] Axial Strain [in/in]
 Summary and conclusions
GP connections modeled with either FBE or rotational spring
provide similar both global and local responses of the system.
GP connections should not be modeled as pinned if buckling of
the braces is expected.
Global and local responses are sensitive to the value of the
geometric imperfection at the middle of the brace
AISC specifies construction tolerance of steel elements under
compression to Leff/1000 (design documents)
Local response of the system is sensitive to the number of FB
elements used to model the brace.
To capture the fracture of the brace it is recommended to use
10-20 elements
3D frame models can be replaced with 2D models without
compromising the accuracy of the results (especially in the case
of GP connections modeled with rotational springs)
 References
1. Patxi Uriz, and Stephen A. Mahin, (2008), Toward Earthquake-
Resistant Design of Concentrically Braced Steel-Frame Structures,
PEER report 2008/08.
2. Po-Chien Hsiao, Dawn E. Lehman, and Charles W. Roeder, (2012),
"Improved analytical model for special concentrically braced frames",
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 73 (21012) 80-94.
3. Liu J, and Astaneh-Asl A, (2004), Moment-Rotation Parameters for
Composite Shear Tab Connections, Journal of structural
engineering, ASCE 2004;130(9).
4. Po-Chien Hsiao, Dawn E. Lehman, and Charles W. Roeder, (2013),
A model to simulate special concentrically braced frames beyond
brace fracture, Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2013; 42:183200