Steel and Composite Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Seismic response and energy dissipation in partially restrained and fully restrained steel frames: An analytical study

  • Published : 2001.12.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The damage suffered by steel structures during the Northridge (1994) and Kobe (1995) earthquakes indicates that the fully restrained (FR) connections in steel frames did not behave as expected. Consequently, researchers began studying other possibilities, including making the connections more flexible, to reduce the risk of damage from seismic loading. Recent experimental and analytical investigations pointed out that the seismic response of steel frames with partially restrained (PR) connections might be superior to that of similar frames with FR connections since the energy dissipation at PR connections could be significant. This beneficial effect has not yet been fully quantified analytically. Thus, the dissipation of energy at PR connections needs to be considered in analytical evaluations, in addition to the dissipation of energy due to viscous damping and at plastic hinges (if they form). An algorithm is developed and verified by the authors to estimate the nonlinear time-domain dynamic response of steel frames with PR connections. The verified algorithm is then used to quantify the major sources of energy dissipation and their effect on the overall structural response in terms of the maximum base shear and the maximum top displacement. The results indicate that the dissipation of energy at PR connections is comparable to that dissipated by viscous damping and at plastic hinges. In general, the maximum total base shear significantly increases with an increase in the connection stiffness. On the other hand, the maximum top lateral displacement $U_{max}$ does not always increase as the connection stiffness decreases. Energy dissipation is considerably influenced by the stiffness of a connection, defined in terms of the T ratio, i.e., the ratio of the moment the connection would have to carry according to beam line theory (Disque 1964) and the fixed end moment of the girder. A connection with a T ratio of at least 0.9 is considered to be fully restrained. The energy dissipation behavior may be quite different for a frame with FR connections with a T ratio of 1.0 compared to when the T ratio is 0.9. Thus, for nonlinear seismic analysis, a T ratio of at least 0.9 should not be considered to be an FR connection. The study quantitatively confirms the general observations made in experimental results for frames with PR connections. Proper consideration of the PR connection stiffness and other dynamic properties are essential to predict dynamic behavior, no matter how difficult the analysis procedure becomes. Any simplified approach may need to be calibrated using this type of detailed analytical study.

Keywords

References

  1. American Institute of Steel Construction (1994), Manual of Steel Construction: Load and Resistance Factor Design, Chicago, Illinois.
  2. Clough, R.W., Penzien, J. (1993), Dynamics of Structures, 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  3. Disque, R.O. (1964), "Wind connections with simple framing", Eng. J., AISC 1(3), 101-3.
  4. Elnashai, A.S., Elghazoulli, A.Y. and Denesh-Ashtiani, F.A. (1998), "Response of semi-rigid steel frames to cyclic and earthquake loads", J. Struct. Eng., ASCE 124(8), 857-867. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:8(857)
  5. Gao, L. and Haldar, A. (1995), "Safety evaluation of frames with PR connections", J. Struct. Eng., ASCE 121(7), 1101-1109. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1995)121:7(1101)
  6. Haldar, A. and Nee, K.M. (1989), "Elasto-plastic large deformation analysis of PR steel frames for LRFD", Comput. and Struct. 31(5), 811-823.
  7. Jayakumar, P. and Beck, J.I. (1988), "System identification using nonlinear structural models", Structural Safety Evaluation Based on System Identification Approaches, H.G. Natge and J.T.P. Yao (Eds.), Vieweg & Sons, Wiesbaden, Germany.
  8. Leon, R.T. and Shin, K.J. (1995), "Performance of semi-rigid frames", Proc. of Structure Congress 1020-1035.
  9. Nader, M.N. and Astaneh, A. (1991), "Dynamic behavior of flexible, semirigid and rigid frames", J. Constr. Steel Res. 18, 179-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/0143-974X(91)90024-U
  10. Reyes-Salazar, A. (1997), "Inelastic seismic response and ductility evaluation of steel frames with fully, partially restrained and composite connections", PhD. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
  11. Reyes-Salazar, A. and Haldar, A. (2000), "Dissipation of energy in steel frames with PR connections", Struct. Eng. and Mech., An Int. J. 9(3), 241-256.
  12. Richard, R.M. (1993), "PRCONN, moment-rotation curves for partially restrained connections", RMR Design Group, Tucson, Arizona.
  13. Richard, R.M., Allen, J., Partridge, J.E. (1997), "Proprietary slotted beam connection designs", Modern Steel Construction, AISC 28-33.
  14. Roeder, C.W., Schneider, S.P., Carpenter, J.E. (1993), "Seismic behavior of moment-resisting steel frames: analytical study", J. Struct. Eng., ASCE 119, 1866-1884. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1993)119:6(1866)
  15. Shi, G. and Atluri, S.N. (1998), "elasto-plastic large deformation analysis of space-frames", Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng., 26, 589-615.
  16. Uang, C.M., Bertero, V.V. (1990), "Evaluation of seismic energy in structures", J. Earthq. Eng. and Structural Dynamics 19, 77-90. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290190108

Cited by

  1. 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
  2. Seismic response estimation of steel buildings with deep columns and PMRF vol.17, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2014.17.4.471
  3. Dynamic response and limit analysis of buried high-pressure gas pipeline under blasting load based on the Hamilton principle vol.19, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.21595/jve.2016.17066
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Ductility reduction factors for steel buildings considering different structural representations vol.13, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9676-z
  8. 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
  9. 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
  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. Multi-Component Seismic Response Analysis – A Critical Review vol.12, pp.5, 2008, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460701672979
  12. Identifying the hysteretic energy demand and distribution in regular steel frames vol.6, pp.6, 2006, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2006.6.6.479
  13. A Novel Risk Assessment for Complex Structural Systems vol.60, pp.1, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2010.2104191
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. A novel reliability technique for implementation of Performance-Based Seismic Design of structures vol.142, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.03.076
  17. Performance-Based Seismic Design of Steel Buildings Using Rigidities of Connections vol.4, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000943
  18. Ductility Reduction Factors for Steel Buildings Modeled as 2D and 3D Structures vol.595, pp.1662-7482, 2014, https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.595.166
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Energy-based numerical evaluation for seismic performance of a high-rise steel building vol.13, pp.6, 2012, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2012.13.6.501
  23. Effect of modeling assumptions on the seismic behavior of steel buildings with perimeter moment frames vol.41, pp.2, 2001, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2012.41.2.183
  24. Ductility demands and reduction factors for 3D steel structures with pinned and semi-rigid connections vol.16, pp.4, 2001, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2019.16.4.469
  25. State-of-the-art review: Reduction factor of traditional steel moment resisting, braced or eccentrically braced systems vol.35, pp.None, 2001, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.11.028