You are on page 1of 11

11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering 1998 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 982 3

Behaviour factor (q-factor) for non-standard dual steel frame structures


Z. Rakicevic, M.Sc. & D. Jurukovski, Ph.D.
Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia

Keywords: steel frame structures, q-factor, passive control, energy dissipation, friction damping ABSTRACT: For the non-standard dual systems the value of the q-factor does not depend only on the strength capacity and the ductility of the main frame structure and braced frame. It also depends upon the characteristics of the disposable energy absorption elements. Particularly if mechanisms (friction mechanisms with limited slip, in the considered case) are applied which provide modification of the dynamic characteristics of the whole system depending on the intensity of the earthquake excitation. Thats way the standard procedure proposed in EC8 for designing of standard dual structures is not applicable to these non-standard passively controlled dual systems, or any other systems with energy absorbing elements. The only procedure for designing such systems with passive control mechanisms is dynamic non-linear time history analysis using various recorded or artificial (trough seismic hazard analysis of the site) earthquakes.. 1 INTRODUCTION The behaviour factor (q-factor) "is an approximation of the ratio of the seismic forces, that the structure would experience if its response was completely elastic with 5% viscous damping, to the minimum seismic forces that may be used in design - with a conventional linear model - still ensuring a satisfactory response of the structure. The values of behaviour factor q, which also accounts for the influence of the viscous damping being different from 5%, are given for the various materials and structural systems to ductility levels in the relevant Parts of Eurocode 8". For steel frame systems with energy dissipation zones, the q-factor takes into consideration the energy dissipation capacity of the input energy for the case of an earthquake. Depending on the type of the structural system and the cross section class of the elements, the q-factor ranges between 1, for non-dissipated systems, and 8, for dual systems. The intensive investigations in the field of passive control systems conducted at the famous world centers during the past two decades, resulted in a large number of various technological solutions. Parts of them have been already applied to built up structures. A large number of passive control systems for steel frame structures have been developed, such as eccentric diagonals, friction dampers, disposable knee elements and ADAS elements. Their role is, under an earthquake, to dissipate as much as possible of the input energy. In other words, the main structure will remain either non-damaged, or the eventual damage would be slight and easy to repair. The new concept for design of structures - with incorporated passive control systems has an increasing tendency of application. It is also supported by an increased practical application to new structures and repair of existing ones, still, the application of these systems has not been anticipated in the Eurocode 8. Anticipated are, among others, classical dual systems, characterized by greater strength capacity and ductility, but during the action of an earthquake they are affected by greater forces causing damage that is economically unacceptable. It was proved by the last earthquakes at Northridge (1994) and Kobe (1995) which caused serious damage or total failure of a large number of structures, that had been characterized by high strength capacity but minimum or insufficient energy absorption capacity. The design of structures based on new technologies should be paid particular attention. This should be emphasized since in these systems the supplement energy absorp-

11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering 1998 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 982 3

tion elements enable modification of the dynamic characteristics during the earthquake action. It means that up to a certain level of earthquake excitation the structural systems with energy absorption elements behave as classical dual systems, and beyond this level as moment resistant frame systems or as systems belonging between these two categories. The analyzed system belongs into the group of non-standard dual systems using disposable energy absorption elements that provide increase in the initial stiffness of the structure and displacement control. By their triggering, they provide modification of the dynamic characteristics of the system during the earthquake as well as dissipation of a great deal of the input energy. This is of particular importance for the design and construction of high rise steel frame structures. The flexibility of these structures is the reason for the great inter-storey drifts and heavy damage to the secondary structure, even in the case of moderate earthquakes. The system, that is considered by these investigations, is designed as a dual system, as specified by the requirements of Eurocode 3 - Design of Steel Structures - and Eurocode 8 - Design of Earthquake Resistant Structures. No optimization of the cross sections of the disposable elements - central frame and friction system is performed. That will certainly be made later on within the scope of the project titled "Optimal Design of Steel Frame Structures with Passive Control Systems", to be realized under the US-Macedonian scientific and technical cooperation between IZIIS and the National Center for Earthquake Engineering, University at Buffalo, USA. The Project is in the stage of realization, and the results presented in this paper are part of the investigations performed so far. Presented in this paper are the results from the analyses conducted on two systems, one classical (DS) and one non-standard dual system (CS) with six, eight and ten storey (Fig.1.). A comparison of their behaviour under the effect of an earthquake of the same intensity has been made.

Detail of DEFD-system
SB C

Detail of friction mechanism

H IN G E

Figure 1. Hypothetical model of the analyzed system - six-storey structure.

2 DESIGN OF THE SYSTEMS Design of elements cross section is an iterative procedure. For the chosen q-factor a linear dynamic analysis is performed in order to obtain dynamic characteristics of the structures and ordinate of the design spectrum which is used for calculating the design base shear, if simplified modal response spectrum analysis is performed. Then a static analysis is performed in order to determine the design value of the effects of actions in the seismic and non-seismic design situation, as well as relative storey displacements and inter-storey drifts. The chosen cross sections, using these design values, should fulfill the requirements stated in Eurocode 3 (EC3), Part 1-1 and Eurocode 8 (EC8) Part 1-2 and 1-3. If some of the requirements are not met, the procedure should be started all over again.

11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering 1998 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 982 3

Adopting q-factor grater than 5 in the design process does not mean always that the structural elements will have smaller cross sections, because of obtained smaller design seismic forces. The designed cross sections with the design value of the effects of actions in the seismic design situation should met the requirements of EC8 for inter-storey drifts (Part 1-2) and detailing rules (Part 13). Beside this the designed cross section should met the requirements of EC3 with the design value of the effects of actions in the non-seismic design situation. If a designer chose a greater q-factor than 5 for any particular case these requirements should be checked and verified. The standard dual systems are designed according to the requirements of Eurocode 3 and Eurocode 8, applying a design earthquake spectrum with PGA (Peak Ground Acceleration) of 0.35 g and q-factor = 5.0. The natural periods and mode shapes of the structure are obtained through linear dynamic analysis. The first mode periods are 0.92 s, 1.11 s and 1.34 s for the six, eight and the ten-storey structure, respectively. According to these dynamic characteristics the design base shears are 302.48 kN, 358.33 kN and 397.23 kN for the six, eight and the ten-storey structure, respectively. The non-standard dual system (DEFD-Disposable Elements Friction Damping) differs from the standard dual system by the fact that the former has a friction mechanism in it, located at the upper diagonal members (Fig. 1). The friction mechanism, SBC (Slotted Bolted Connections) consists of three plates and two brake lining pads plates between sliding surfaces. The central plate is connected to the top and the lower plate by means of two bolts, in the form of a sandwich. The upper and the lower plate have round openings with standard diameter in respect to the used bolts, whereas elongated openings are drilled through the central plate. When the applied force exceeds the friction force between the plates, which is achieved by introducing prestressing force in the bolts, the central plate starts to slip in respect to the upper and the lower ones. This process is iterated also in the opposite direction because of the cyclic nature of the applied force. During this process, an energy dissipation takes place for the purpose of sustaining the friction forces occurring between the slipping areas. When the slip gap of the plates is over, the additional forces activate the disposable elements (Fig. 1) consisting of the central rectangular ring and the diagonals whereat additional energy dissipation takes place through their plastic deformation. The third defense line is the frame structure itself. The friction gap is chosen to be 15 mm, for all friction mechanisms at all stories. This means that the friction mechanism will be active until the inter-storey drift is below 15 mm (almost twice as allowed in EC8) plus the amount of the inter-drift which was reached prior to the activation of the friction mechanism. During these period the input earthquake energy is dissipated trough friction. When the gap is reached the second defense line is activated and the energy is dissipated trough plastic deformation of central disposable elements. The presence of friction mechanism with limited slip is the reason for modification the dynamic characteristics of the non-standard dual system with severity of an earthquake. Thats way the standard procedure proposed in EC8 for designing of standard dual structures is not applicable to these non-standard passively controlled dual systems or any other systems with energy absorbing elements. The only procedure for designing such systems with passive control mechanisms is dynamic non-linear time history analysis using various recorded or artificial (trough seismic hazard analysis of the site) earthquakes. 3 ANALYSIS OF THE SYSTEMS Static nonlinear analysis is performed in order to determine the capacity of the structure. Nonlinear dynamic analysis is performed in order to estimate the behaviour of the classical and the non-standard dual systems under actual earthquake excitation. In the analysis, SAP90 and DRAIN-2DX computer software have been applied.

11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering 1998 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 982 3

3.1 Mathematical model for nonlinear analysis DRAIN-2DX computer program is used for mathematical modeling and nonlinear static and dynamic analysis. The columns, beams, diagonals and the closed central frame are modeled by plastic hinge beam-column elements type 02, while the friction mechanism with limited sliding, due to its function, is modeled with three parallel elements, one inelastic truss bar element type 01 and two compression/tension link elements type 09. For the columns, the interaction between the bending moment and the axial force is taken into consideration. 3.2 Static nonlinear analysis of DS systems Static nonlinear analysis is performed on classical dual systems in the way specified in Eurocode 8. The vertical loads are kept constant, while the design seismic forces are gradually increased until the occurrence of the first plastic hinge in the most strained cross section. In this way 1 coefficient is obtained. Then, the design seismic forces are further increased until kinematically unstable structure is obtained. In this way u is obtained. On the basis of the performed analysis is obtained that the u/1 is much grater (2-2.5) than the one limited in EC8 (1.6) Presented in Figures 2,3 are the diagrams of the storey shear forces and the inter storey drifts for six eight, and ten story structure.
8 0.0 9 0.0

Storey Shear (kN) *10

Storey Shear (kN) *10


0 1 6.0 32 .0 48 .0 6 4.0 80 .0

6 4.0

48 .0

3 2.0

16 .0

0 0

18 .0

3 6.0

54 .0

7 2.0

1 4 .0

28 .0

4 2.0

5 6.0

70 .0

Drift (m m ) Drift (m m ) Figure 2. Relationship between storey shear forces and inter storey drifts - six and eight DS system.
8 0.0 10 0.0 0 0 20 .0 4 0.0 60 .0

Storey Shear (kN) *10

2 0.0

40 .0

6 0.0

80 .0 1 00 .0

Drift (m m ) Figure 3. Relationship between storey shear forces and inter storey drifts - ten storey DS system.

11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering 1998 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 982 3

It can be seen from the diagrams that the design shear force at the base for the six storey structure is 302.48 kN (10.04% of the weight), while at failure it reaches the value of 706.09 kN (23.44% of the weight). For the eight storey structure, the design shear force at the base is 358.33 kN (8.86% of the weight), while at failure it reaches the value of 793.49 kN (19.62% of the weight). For the ten storey structure, the design shear force at the base is 397.23 kN (7.82% of the weight), while at failure it reaches the value of 895.08 kN (17.62% of the weight). 3.3 Dynamic nonlinear analysis Nonlinear dynamic analysis is performed applying El Centro S00E earthquake record (Imperial Valley 1940). The structures were subjected to the earthquake for a time duration of 20 sec and scaled to 0.35 g PGA. When the six storey DS system was subjected to the El Centro earthquake PGA=0.35 g, the diagonal systems were completely destroyed and plastic hinges developed at the first and second floor columns and beams and one beam at the fourth floor (Fig.4a). When the CS system was subjected to the same excitation, the diagonal system (disposable elements - diagonals and central frame) exhibited linear behaviour as a result of the friction mechanism. Only plastic hinges developed in the three columns feet at the first floor, but they were of far smaller rotation, compared to those of the classic dual system (Fig. 4b).

a/ dual system DS b/ DEFD - controlled system CS Figure 4. Location of plastic hinges - six storey structure, El Centro 0.35g.

When the eight storey DS system was subjected to the El Centro earthquake PGA=0.35 g, plastic hinges developed in the disposable elements - the diagonal systems, except on the 8-th floor. Plastic hinges developed in all columns feet at first floor and beams from 1-st to 4-th (Fig. 5a) For the same excitation, applied on the CS system, plastic hinges developed only the central columns feet at the first floor and beams of second and fourth floor. The disposable elements - diagonal system remained undamaged (Fig. 5b). When the ten storey DS system was subjected to the El Centro earthquake PGA=0.35 g, plastic hinges developed in the disposable elements- the diagonal systems, except on the 10-th floor. Plastic hinges developed in beams at 2-nd, 3-rd and 5-th to 7-th floor (Fig. 6a) For the same excitation, applied on the CS system, plastic hinges developed only in the beams at 3-rd to 7-th floor. The disposable elements - diagonal system remained undamaged (Fig. 6b).

11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering 1998 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 982 3

a/ dual system DS b/ DEFD - controlled system CS Figure 5. Location of plastic hinges - eight storey structure, El Centro 0.35g.

a/ dual system DS b/ DEFD - controlled system CS Figure 6. Location of plastic hinges - ten storey structure, El Centro 0.35g.

11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering 1998 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 982 3

The efficiency of the DEFD system [Jurukovski D. & Rakicevic Z. 1995-1997] can be seen in the diagrams shown in Figures 7-14. It can be seen in the diagrams that for the six-storey nonstandard dual system with a DEFD passive control system the relative displacements are smaller by 3.61% - 31.25%, as compared to the classical dual system (Fig. 7). The relative inter-storey drifts are also decreased. It can be seen in Figure 10 that for the six-storey classical dual system, 78.84% of the input energy is dissipated, mainly due to plastification of the diagonal system columns and beams at the first two stories. For the CS system the amount of the dissipated energy is 82.30%. The biggest part of input energy is dissipated due to activation of friction mechanisms.

DS CS

DS

El Centro 0.35g
0

CS 0

El Centro 0.35g
-10 0 10 20 30

-100 -80

-60

-40

-20

20

40

60

80

100

-30

-20

Relative Displacement (mm)

Interstorey drift (mm)

Figure 7. Envelopes of relative storey displacement and inter-storey drifts - six storey structure.

DS 1 CS 0

DS

El Centro 0.35g
0 25 50 75 100 -25

1 CS 0

El Centro 0.35g
0 5 10 15 20 25

-100

-75

-50

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

Realitive Displacement (mm)

Interstorey drift (mm)

Figure 8. Envelopes of relative storey displacement and inter-storey drifts - eight storey structure.

11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering 1998 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 982 3

For the eight-storey non-standard dual system with DEFD passive control system the relative displacements are smaller up to 16.67%, compared to the classical dual system, (Fig. 8). The relative inter-storey drifts are also decreased. It can be seen in Figure 11 that for the eight-storey classical dual system, 75.54% of the input energy is dissipated, due to plastification of the diagonal system and columns and beams. For the CS system the biggest part of dissipated energy is due to activation of friction mechanisms, and the amount of the dissipated energy is 80.05%. For the ten-storey non-standard dual system with DEFD passive control system the relative displacements are smaller up to 30%, compared to the classical dual system, (Fig. 9). The relative inter-storey drifts are also decreased. It can be seen in Figure 12 that for the ten-storey classical dual system, 70.73% of the input energy is dissipated, due to plastification of the diagonal system and beams. For the CS system the biggest part of dissipated energy is due to activation of friction mechanisms, and the amount of the dissipated energy is 81.16%.

10

10

2 DS 1 CS 0 DS

El Centro 0.35g
0 26 52 78 104 130 -25

1 CS 0

El Centro 0.35g
0 5 10 15 20 25

-130 -104 -78

-52

-26

-20

-15

-10

-5

Realitive Displacement (mm)

Interstorey drift (mm)

Figure 9. Envelopes of relative storey displacement and inter-storey drifts - ten storey structure.

Energy (kNm )

7 2.0

1 08 .0

14 4.0 18 0.0

d ua l system con tro lle d syste m d ua l system con tro lle d syste m

input input d issip. d issip. 1 4.0

E =1 64 .9 kN m E =1 46 .3 kN m E =1 30 .0 kN m E =1 20 .4 kN m 16 .0 1 8.0 20 .0

0 0

36 .0

2.0

4 .0

6.0

8 .0

1 0.0

12 .0

Tim e (s) Figure 10. Diagrams of input and dissipated energy quantities - six storey structure.

11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering 1998 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 982 3
14 4.0 180.0 7 2.0 1 08.0

Energy (kNm )

dua l system contro lle d system

inp ut inp ut dissip. dissip. 1 4.0

E =2 17 .6 kN m E =1 99 .0 kN m E =1 53 .9 kN m E =1 61 .5 kN m 16.0 18.0 20.0

36.0

dua l system contro lle d system

0 0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

1 0.0

12 .0

Tim e (s)

Figure 11. Diagrams of input and dissipated energy quantities - eight storey structure.
14 4.0 18 0.0 108.0

En ergy (kNm )

72.0

d ual system con tro lle d system d ual system con tro lle d system

input input d issip. d issip.

E =1 74 .2 kN m E =1 63 .4 kN m E =1 31 .6 kN m E =1 30 .8 kN m

0 0

36 .0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

1 0.0

12.0

1 4.0

16 .0

1 8.0

20 .0

Tim e (s)

Figure 12. Diagrams of input and dissipated energy quantities - ten storey structure.
6 DS CS 5
6 8

El Centro 0.35g

DS CS 7

El Centro 0.35g

4
5

2
2

1
1

-1400 -1050

-700

-350

350

700

1050

1400

-1600 -1200

-800

-400

400

800

1200

1600

Storey shear force (kN)

Storey shear force (kN)

Figure 13. Envelopes of storey shear forces- six and eight storey structure.

11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering 1998 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 982 3

10 DS 9 CS 8

El Centro 0.35g

-1800 -1350

-900

-450

450

900

1350

1800

Storey shear force (kN)

Figure 14. Envelopes of storey shear forces- ten storey structure.

Storey shear forces, as can be seen from Figures 13-14, are smaller for CS system compared to DS system. Namely, reductions in storey shear forces are: for six storey structure 2.76%-13.37%, for eight storey structure 1.42%-10.87% and for the ten storey structure 3.92%-11.05% 4 CONCLUSION Based on performed analysis could be stated that the procedure for the determination of the appropriate q-factor, as well as designing of the structures according to the Eurocodes, is iterative and complex. Adopting q-factor grater than 5 in the design process does not mean always that the structural elements will have smaller cross sections, because of obtained smaller design seismic forces. The designed cross sections with the design value of the effects of actions in the seismic design situation should met the requirements of EC8 for inter-storey drifts and detailing rules. Beside this the designed cross section should met the requirements of EC3 with the design value of the effects of actions in the non-seismic design situation. If a designer chose a greater q-factor than 5 for any particular case these requirements should be checked and verified. For the non-standard dual systems the value of the q-factor does not depend only on the strength capacity and the ductility of the main frame structure and braced frame. It also depends upon the characteristics of the disposable energy absorption elements. Particularly if mechanisms (friction mechanisms with limited slip, in the considered case) are applied which provide modification of the dynamic characteristics of the whole system depending on the intensity of the earthquake excitation. Thats way the standard procedure proposed in EC8 for designing of standard dual structures is not applicable to these non-standard passively controlled dual systems or any other systems with energy absorbing elements. The only procedure for designing such systems with passive control mechanisms is dynamic non-linear time history analysis using various recorded or artificial (trough seismic hazard analysis of the site) earthquakes. The mathematical models for non-linear behaviour of the elements (force-displacement, moment-curvature, stress-strain hysteretic relations) should be determined based on experimental data. Otherwise, a great attention should be paid on defining appropriate non-linear hysteretic models. The conducted analyses showed that, under the same dynamic conditions, the same earthquake, the non-standard dual systems behave more favorably compared to the classical ones. It should be

10

11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering 1998 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 982 3

also added that by their optimization, the non-standard dual system under earthquake excitation can be improved even more, considering their safety degree, multi-line defense (friction mechanism, disposable elements, main frame structure). Finally, passive control systems can be designed to be less costly than the classical dual systems. REFERENCES
EUROCODE 3: Design of Steel Structures, Part 1.1-General rules for buildings, April 1992 EUROCODE 8: Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures, Part 1-1,1-2 May 1994 and Part 1-3, November 1994 Jurukovski D., Huffmann G., Mamucevski D. & Winkler A. 1986. Shaking Table Test of a Five Storey Steel Frame Base Isolated by Spring-Dashpot System, Proc. of 8th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, September 1986. Jurukovski D. & Simeonov B. 1988. Effectiveness of Energy Absorbing Elements in Composite Steel Frames, Proc. of 9th WCEE, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, 1988. Jurukovski D., Simeonov B., Trajkovski V. & Petkovski M. 1988 Development of Energy Absorbing Elements, IZIIS Report 94-88, May 1988, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia Jurukovski D. & Petkovski M. 1992. Systems for Control of Dynamic Response of Structures, IZIIS Report 92-64, November 1992, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia Jurukovski D., Petkovski M. & Rakicevic Z. 1995. Energy Absorbing Elements in Regular and Composite Steel Structures, Journal of Engineering Structures, Vol. 17 No. 5 pp. 319-333, Butterworth Heinemann, Elsevier Science Ltd. Jurukovski, D. & Rakicevic Z. 1996. System for Control of Dynamic Behaviour of Structures Excited by Strong Earthquake , Journal of Engineering Creation and Technology, Volume 1, No. I, Institution of Engineering-Scientific Societies and Unions of Republic of Macedonia, March 1996,Skopje, Republic of Macedonia Jurukovski, D. & Rakicevic, Z. 1997. Dynamic Behaviour of Steel Frame Structures with Dissipative Systems, Proc of Prof. Dr. Rifat Yarar Symposium, December 1997, Istanbul, Turkey Rakicevic, Z. 1995. Development of a Passive Control System for Steel Frame Structures Response, Master Thesis, IZIIS, July, 1995, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia Rakicevic Z. & Jurukovski D. 1996. Development of a Passive Control System for steel Frame Structures, Proc. 11th WCEE, Acapulco, Mexico, 1996. Yang T-S. & Popov E. P. 1995. Experimental and Analytical Studies of Steel Connections and Energy Dissipators, Report No. UCB/EERC-95/13, December 1995, Berkeley, USA

11

You might also like