Structural Engineering and Mechanics

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Dissipation of energy in steel frames with PR connections

  • Published : 2000.03.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The major sources of energy dissipation in steel frames with partially restrained (PR) connections are evaluated. Available experimental results are used to verify the mathematical model used in this study. The verified model is then used to quantify the energy dissipation in PR connections due to hysteretic behavior, due to viscous damping and at plastic hinges if they are formed. Observations are made for two load conditions: a sinusoidal load applied at the top of the frame, and a sinusoidal ground acceleration applied at the base of the frame representing a seismic loading condition. This analytical study confirms the general behavior, observed during experimental investigations, that PR connections reduce the overall stiffness of frames, but add a major source of energy dissipation. As the connections become stiffer, the contribution of PR connections in dissipating energy becomes less significant. A connection with a T ratio (representing its stiffness) of at least 0.9 should not be considered as fully restrained as is commonly assumed, since the energy dissipation characteristics are different. The flexibility of PR connections alters the fundamental frequency of the frame. Depending on the situation, it may bring the frame closer to or further from the resonance condition. If the frame approaches the resonance condition, the effect of damping is expected to be very important. However, if the frame moves away from the resonance condition, the energy dissipation at the PR connections is expected to be significant with an increase in the deformation of the frame, particularly for low damping values. For low damping values, the dissipation of energy at plastic hinges is comparable to that due to viscous damping, and increases as the frame approaches failure. For the range of parameters considered in this study, the energy dissipations at the PR connections and at the plastic hinges are of the same order of magnitude. The study quantitatively confirms the general observations made in experimental investigations for steel frames with PR connections; however, proper consideration of the stiffness of PR connections and other dynamic properties is essential in predicting the dynamic behavior.

Keywords

References

  1. Chen, W.F. and Lui, E.M. (1987), "Effects of joint flexibility on the behavior of steel frames", Computers andStructures, 26(5), 719-732. https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(87)90021-6
  2. Colson, A. (1991), "Theoretical modeling of semirigid connections behavior" Journal of the Construction SteelResearch, 19, 213-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/0143-974X(91)90045-3
  3. Disque, R.O. (1964), "Wind connections with simple framing", Engineering Journal, AISC, 1(3), 101-103.
  4. El-Salti, M.K. (1992), "Design of frames with partially restrained connections", PhD Thesis, Department of CivilEngineering and Engineering Mechanics, University of Arizona.
  5. Fry, M.J. and Morris, G.A. (1975), "Analysis of flexibly connected steel frames", Canadian Journal of CivilEngineering, 2(3), 280-291. https://doi.org/10.1139/l75-026
  6. Gao, L. and Haldar, A. (1995), "Safety evaluation of frames with PR connections", Journal of StructuralEngineering, ASCE, 121(7), 1101-1109. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1995)121:7(1101)
  7. Haldar, A. and Nee, K.-M. (1989), "Elasto-plastic large deformation analysis of PR steel frames for LRFD",Computers & Structures, 31(5), 811-823. https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(89)90215-0
  8. Haldar, A. and Reyes, S.A. (1996), "Ductility evaluation of steel frames with PR connections", Eleventh WorldConference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 1903.
  9. Kawamura, H. and Galambos, T.V. (1989), "Earthquake load for structural reliability", Journal of StructuralEngineering, ASCE, 115(6), 1446-1462. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1989)115:6(1446)
  10. Kondoh, K. and Atluri, S.N. (1987), "Large deformation, elasto-plastic analysis of frames under non-conservativeloading, using explicitly derived tangent stiffness based on assumed stress", Computational MechanicsJournal, 2(1), 1-25.
  11. Leger, P. and Dussault, S. (1992), "Seismic-energy dissipation in MDOF structures", Journal of StructuralDivision, ASCE, 118(5), 1251-1269. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1992)118:5(1251)
  12. Leon, R.T. and Shin, K.J. (1995), "Performance of semi-rigid frames", Proceedings of Structure Congress, 1020-1035, April.
  13. Nader, M.N. and Astaneh, A. (1991), "Dynamic behavior of flexible, semirigid and rigid frames", Journal ofConstruction Steel Research, 18, 179-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/0143-974X(91)90024-U
  14. Reyes-Salazar, A. and Haldar, A. (1997), "Inelastic nonlinear seismic response and ductility evaluation of steelframes with fully, partially restrained and composite connections", Report No. CEEM-97-01, Department ofCivil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
  15. Reyes-Salazar, A. and Haldar, A. (1999), "Nonlinear seismic response of steel structures with PR and compositeconnections", Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 51(1), 37-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0143-974X(99)00005-X
  16. Richard, R.M. (1986), "Single-plate framing connection designs", The National Engineering Conference, June.
  17. Richard, R.M., PRCONN (1993), "Moment-rotation curves for partially restrained connections", RMR DesignGroup, Tucson, Arizona.
  18. Shi, G. and Atluri, S.N. (1988), "Elasto-plastic large deformation analysis of space-frames", InternationalJournal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 26, 589-615. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.1620260306
  19. Uang, C.M. and Bertero, V.V. (1990), "Evaluation of seismic energy in structures", Journal of EarthquakeEngineering and Structural Dynamics, 19, 77-90. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290190108

Cited by

  1. Combination rules and critical seismic response of steel buildings modeled as complex MDOF systems vol.10, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.10.1.211
  2. Performance-Based Seismic Design of Steel Buildings Using Rigidities of Connections vol.4, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000943
  3. Effect of Damping and Yielding on the Seismic Response of 3D Steel Buildings with PMRF vol.2014, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/915494
  4. Strength or force reduction factors for steel buildings: MDOF vs SDOF systems vol.19, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.21595/jve.2016.17124
  5. Ductility reduction factors for steel buildings considering different structural representations vol.13, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9676-z
  6. Seismic response of complex 3D steel buildings with welded and post-tensioned connections vol.11, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.11.2.217
  7. Accuracy of combination rules and individual effect correlation: MDOF vs SDOF systems vol.12, pp.4, 2012, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2012.12.4.353
  8. Seismic response of 3D steel buildings with hybrid connections: PRC and FRC vol.22, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2016.22.1.113
  9. Force reduction factors for steel buildings with welded and post-tensioned connections vol.14, pp.10, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9925-4
  10. Review of assumptions in simplified multi-component and codified seismic response evaluation procedures vol.19, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-015-0190-x
  11. Seismic risk analysis of frames with uncertain support and PR connection conditions vol.5, pp.4, 2001, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02829107
  12. Seismic Response of 3D Steel Buildings considering the Effect of PR Connections and Gravity Frames vol.2014, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/346156
  13. Ductility and ductility reduction factor for MDOF systems vol.13, pp.4, 2002, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2002.13.4.369
  14. Energy Dissipation and Local, Story, and Global Ductility Reduction Factors in Steel Frames under Vibrations Produced by Earthquakes vol.2018, pp.1875-9203, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9713685
  15. Seismic response and energy dissipation of 3D complex steel buildings considering the influence of interior semi-rigid connections: low- medium- and high-rise vol.16, pp.11, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0405-x
  16. Local, Story, and Global Ductility Evaluation for Complex 2D Steel Buildings: Pushover and Dynamic Analysis vol.9, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/app9010200
  17. Identifying the hysteretic energy demand and distribution in regular steel frames vol.6, pp.6, 2000, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2006.6.6.479
  18. Experimentally validated FEA models of HF2V damage free steel connections for use in full structural analyses vol.37, pp.4, 2000, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2011.37.4.385
  19. Effect of modeling assumptions on the seismic behavior of steel buildings with perimeter moment frames vol.41, pp.2, 2000, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2012.41.2.183
  20. Ductility demands and reduction factors for 3D steel structures with pinned and semi-rigid connections vol.16, pp.4, 2000, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2019.16.4.469
  21. State-of-the-art review: Reduction factor of traditional steel moment resisting, braced or eccentrically braced systems vol.35, pp.None, 2000, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.11.028