Steel and Composite Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Seismic response analysis of steel frames with post-Northridge connection

  • Received : 2004.06.04
  • Accepted : 2005.02.24
  • Published : 2005.08.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The seismic behavior of two steel moment-resisting frames, which satisfy all the current seismic design requirements, are evaluated and compared in the presence of pre-Northridge connections denoted as BWWF and an improved post-Northridge connections denoted as BWWF-AD. Pre-Northridge connections are modeled first as fully restrained (FR) type. Then they are considered to be partially restrained (PR) to model their behavior more realistically. The improved post-Northridge connections are modeled as PR type, as proposed by the authors. A sophisticated nonlinear time-domain finite element program developed by the authors is used for the response evaluation of the frames in terms of the overall rotation of the connections and the maximum drift. The frames are excited by ten recorded earthquake time histories. These time histories are then scaled up to produce some relevant response characteristics. The behaviors of the frames are studied comprehensively with the help of 120 analyses. Following important observations are made. The frames produced essentially similar rotation and drift for the connections modeled as FR type and PR type represented by BWWF-AD indicating that the presence of slots in the web of beams in BWWF-AD is not detrimental to the overall response behavior. When the lateral displacements of the frames are significantly large, the responses are improved if BWWF-AD type connections are used in the frames. This study analytically confirms many desirable features of BWWF-AD connections. PR frames have longer periods of vibration in comparison to FR frames and may attract lower inertia forces. However, calculated periods of the frames of this study using FEMA 350 empirical equation is longer than those calculated using dynamic characteristics of the frames. This may result in even lower design forces and may adversely influence the design.

Keywords

References

  1. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) (2002),"Seismic provisions for structural steel building," AISC 341-02, Chicago.
  2. Astaneh, A. (1989),"Demand and supply of ductility in steel shear connections," J. Constructional Steel Research, 14, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/0143-974X(89)90067-9
  3. Engelhardt, M.D., and Sabol, T.A. (1995),"Testing of welded steel moment connections in response to the Northridge earthquake," Progress Report to the AISC Advisory Subcommittee on Special Moment Resisting Frame Research, University of Texas at Austin.
  4. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2000),"Seismic design criteria for steel moment-frame structures," FEMA 350-353 and 355A-F.
  5. Haldar, A. and Mahadevan, S. (2000), Reliability Assessment Using Stochastic Finite Element Analysis, John Wiley and Sons.
  6. Haldar, A. and Zhou, Y. (1991b),"An efficient SFEM algorithm for nonlinear structures," Computational Stochastic Mechanics, 851-862.
  7. Mehrabian, A. (2002),"Seismic performance of steel frames with a post-Northridge connection," Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, The University of Arizona, Tucson.
  8. Nader, M.N. and Astaneh, A (1991),"Dynamic behavior of flexible, semirigid, and rigid frames," J. Constructional Steel Research, 18, 179-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/0143-974X(91)90024-U
  9. Reyes, A.S. and Haldar, A. (1999),"Nonlinear seismic response of steel structures with PR and composite connections," J. Constructional Steel Research, 51(1), 37-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0143-974X(99)00005-X
  10. Richard, R.M. (1993), PRCONN Manual, RMR Design Group, Tucson.
  11. Richard, R.M. and Radau, R.E. (1998),"Force, stress and strain distribution in FR bolted welded connections," Proc. of Structural Engineering Worldwide.
  12. Richard, R.M., Allen, C.J. and Partridge, J.E. (1997),"Proprietary slotted beam connection designs," Modern Steel Construction.
  13. Seismic Structural Design Associates, Inc. (SSDA) (1999 and 2001), SSDA Beam Slot Connection Manuals.
  14. Yang, T.S. and Popov, E.P. (1995),"Behavior of pre-Northridge moment resisting steel connections," Report No. UCB/EERC 95/08, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley.

Cited by

  1. A three-step design science approach to develop a novel human resource-planning framework in projects: the cases of construction projects in USA, Europe, and Iran vol.33, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.009
  2. Training, motivation, and performance: The case of human resource management in construction projects in Mashhad, Iran vol.27, pp.5, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.08.002
  3. Time-domain seismic reliability of nonlinear structures vol.31, pp.4, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02716782
  4. A Novel Concept for the Reliability Evaluation of Large Systems vol.15, pp.11, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1260/1369-4332.15.11.1879
  5. Performance-Based Seismic Design of Steel Buildings Using Rigidities of Connections vol.4, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000943
  6. Structural engineering in the new millennium: opportunities and challenges vol.26, pp.4, 2008, https://doi.org/10.1108/02630800810906548
  7. Optimal seismic retrofit model for steel moment resisting frames with brittle connections vol.17, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-018-0479-0
  8. Some lessons learned from post-earthquake damage survey of structures in Bam, Iran earthquake of 2003 vol.23, pp.3, 2005, https://doi.org/10.1108/02630800510610116
  9. Effect of modeling assumptions on the seismic behavior of steel buildings with perimeter moment frames vol.41, pp.2, 2005, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2012.41.2.183
  10. Alternative reliability-based methodology for evaluation of structures excited by earthquakes vol.14, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2018.14.4.361
  11. Bending, buckling, and free vibration analyses of carbon nanotube reinforced composite beams and experimental tensile test to obtain the mechanical properties of nanocomposite vol.29, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2018.29.3.405