View
11
Download
4
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
Innovations in Innovations in Earthquake Resistant Earthquake Resistant
Steel StructuresSteel Structures
Michel BruneauDirector, MCEERProfessor, CSEE
University at Buffalo
Selected Recent InnovationsSelected Recent Innovations
Expanding range of applicability of a number of new and emerging structural steel systems that can provide effective seismic performance.
Buckling Restrained Braced Designed to meet Structural Fuse objectives
Rocking braced frames.Tubular Eccentrically Braced FramesSteel Plate Shear Walls
AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgmentsPh.D. Students:
Bing Qu – Seismic Performance of Buildings with Steel Plate Shear WallsMichael Pollino – Rocking Steel Framed SystemsJeffrey Berman – Seismic Retrofit of Large Bridges Braced BentRamiro Vargas – Enhancing Resilience using Passive Energy Dissipation SystemsDarren Vian – Passive Energy Dissipation using Metallic In-fillsShuichi Fujikura – Multi-Hazard Resilient Bridges
M.Sc. Students: Ronny Purba – Design of Perforated Steel Plate Shear WallsJeffrey Berman – Thin Steel Infill Walls as Passive Energy Dissipators for the Seismic Retrofit of Hospitals
Post-Doc: Gordon Warn – Blast Resistance of Steel Plate Shear WallsFunding to MCEER from:
National Science Foundation Federal Highway Administration
Buckling Restrained Braces in Buckling Restrained Braces in Structural Fuse ApplicationStructural Fuse Application
Structural FusesStructural FusesEarthquake-resistant design has long relied on hysteretic energy dissipation to provide life-safety level of protectionAdvantages of yielding steel
Stable material properties well known to practicing engineersNot a mechanical device (no special maintenance)Reliable long term performance (resistance to aging)
For traditional structural systems, ductile behavior achieved by stable plastic deformation of structural members = damage to those membersIn conventional structural configurations, serves life-safety purposes, but translates into property loss, and need substantial repairsResearchers have proposed that hysteretic energy dissipation should instead occur in “disposable”structural elements (i.e., structural fuses)
Roeder and Roeder and PopovPopov (1977)(1977)
Ductile seismic behaviorConcentrating energy dissipation in special elements + capacity designLinks not literally disposable
““Ductile FuseDuctile Fuse””
Eccentrically Braced FrameEccentrically Braced Frame
Other studies:Fintel and Ghosh (1981)Aristizabal-Ochoa (1986)Basha and Goel (1996)Carter and Iwankiw (1998)Sugiyama (1998)Rezai et al. (2000)
2
Wada et al. (1992)Wada et al. (1992)DamageDamage--controlled or controlled or DamageDamage--tolerant Structurestolerant Structures
Other studies:Connor et al. (1997)Shimizu et al. (1998)Wada and Huang (1999)Wada et al. (2000)Huang et al. (2002)
Ductile elements were used to reduce inelastic deformations of the main structureConcept applied to high rise buildings (T > 4 s)
Ground Motion, üg(t)
mass, m
frame, fbraces, b
structural fuse, d
Benefits of Structural Fuse Concept:Benefits of Structural Fuse Concept:
Seismically induced damage is concentrated on the fusesFollowing a damaging earthquake only the fuses would need to be replacedOnce the structural fuses are removed, the elastic structure returns to its original position (self-recentering capability)
Δya Δyf u
KfKa
K1
αK1 = Kf
Vyf
Vyd
Vy
Vp
V
Frame
Structural Fuses
Total
αμmax
0.05
0.25
0.50
.0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0.0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0.0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
.0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0.0.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0.0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
.0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0.0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0.0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
.0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
.0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
.0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
10 5 2.5 1.67
Frame Damping System Total
V/Vp
u/Δyf
Structural Fuses
μμ ff== uum
axmax
// ΔΔyfyf
T=T=
ηη=0.2=0.2
ηη=1.0=1.0
αα= 0.05= 0.05
μμmaxmax = 10= 10Drift Limit (NL THA)Drift Limit (NL THA)Drift Limit (Suggested)Drift Limit (Suggested)
System PropertiesSystem Properties
IB, ZB
IC IC
L
H
Bare FrameBare Frame
IB, ZB
IC
L
HIC
θ θ
Ab Ab
BRBsBRBsIB, ZB
IC IC
L
H
θ θ
Ab Ab
N plates
TT--ADASADAS
IB, ZB
IC IC
L
H
θ θ
Ab Ab
Shear Panel
Shear PanelShear Panel
h
b
t
h
w
t
bftf
3
Model withModel withNippon Steel Nippon Steel BRBsBRBs
Eccentric GussetEccentric Gusset--PlatePlate
Test 1 Test 1 (PGA = 1g)(PGA = 1g)
Test 1Test 1First Story BRBFirst Story BRB
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Axial Deformation (in)
1st S
tory
Axi
al F
orce
(kip
s)
Test 1 (Nippon Steel BRB Frame)Test 1 (Nippon Steel BRB Frame)First Story Columns ShearFirst Story Columns Shear
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Inter-Story Drift (mm)
1st S
tory
Col
umns
She
ar (k
N)
Static Test Static Test -- Nippon Steel Nippon Steel BRBsBRBsNote: Replacement is to reNote: Replacement is to re--center the building center the building
(not due to BRB fracture life)(not due to BRB fracture life)
4
Rocking Trusses Rocking Trusses (Rocking Braced Frames)(Rocking Braced Frames)
Controlled Rocking/Energy Controlled Rocking/Energy Dissipation SystemDissipation System
Retrofitted Tower
Absence of base of leg connection creates a rocking bridge pier system partially isolating the structure
Installation of steel yielding devices (buckling-restrained braces) at the steel/concrete interface controls the rocking response while providing energy dissipation
Existing Rocking BridgesExisting Rocking BridgesSouth Rangitikei Rail Bridge Lions Gate Bridge North Approach
Static, Hysteretic Behavior of Controlled Static, Hysteretic Behavior of Controlled Rocking PierRocking Pier
Device Response
FPED=0FPED=w/2
General Design Constraints for General Design Constraints for Controlled Rocking SystemControlled Rocking System
(1) Deck-level displacement limits need to be established on a case-by-case basis
Maintain pier stabilityBridge serviceability requirements
(2) Strains on buckling-restrained brace (uplifting displacements) need to be limited such that it behaves in a stable, reliable manner(3) Capacity Protection of existing, vulnerable resisting elements considering 3-components of excitation and dynamic forces developed during impact and uplift(4) Allow for self-centering of pier
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
-5 -3 -1 1 3 5
Δ/Δy
P/P y
Static Horizontal Response
Dynamic Response
(3) Capacity Protection (cont.)(3) Capacity Protection (cont.)
An increase from the static response has been observed due to dynamic excitation of vertical modes of vibration even when subjected solely to horizontal base accelerations
5
1
mm
2
mm
3
mm
4
mm
4 6
mm
mm
5
mm
7
m
m
ΣM=0
VelocityControl impact energy to foundation and impulsive loading on tower legs by limiting velocity
⇒
Displacement DuctilityLimit μL of specially detailed, ductile “fuses”
⇒
β<1⇒ Inherent re-centering (Optional)
Limit forces through vulnerable members using structural “fuses”
Acceleration⇒
Design ProcedureDesign Procedure
Design ConstraintsDesign Chart:
0 100 200 300 4000
2
4
6
8
10
constraint1constraint2constraint3constraint4constraint5
h/d=4
Lub (in.)
Aub
(in2
)
Lub
A ub
Experimental TestingExperimental TestingArtificial Mass Simulation Scaling Procedure
λL>5 (Crane Clearance)λA=1.0 (1-g Field)Wm=70kN (We=76kN)Tom=0.34sec (Toe=0.40sec)
Loading SystemPhase I
5DOF Shake TablePhase II
6DOF Shake Table
Δ
λL=5h/d=4.1
λt=2.26.1m
1.5m
Synthetic EQ 150% of DesignFree Rocking
Synthetic EQ 150% of DesignTADAS Case ηL=1.0 Synthetic EQ 150% of Design – Free Rocking
6
Synthetic EQ 175% of Design - Viscous Dampers
Eccentrically Braced Frames Eccentrically Braced Frames with Tubular Linkswith Tubular Links
b
dtf
tw
Fyw
Fyf
b
dtf
tw
Fyw
Fyf
b
dtf
tw
Fyw
Fyf
Tubular Eccentrically Braced FrameTubular Eccentrically Braced Frame
EBFs with wide-flange (WF) links require lateral bracing of the link to prevent lateral torsional bucklingLateral bracing is difficult to provide in bridge piersDevelopment of a laterallystable EBF link is warrantedConsider rectangular cross-section – No LTB
ProofProof--ofof--Concept TestingConcept Testing
ProofProof--ofof--Concept TestingConcept Testing Finite Element Modeling of Finite Element Modeling of ProofProof--ofof--Concept TestingConcept Testing
Hysteretic Results for Refined ABAQUS Model and Proof-of-Concept Experiment
7
Link Testing Link Testing –– ResultsResultsLarge Deformation Cycles of Specimen X1L1.6
Design SpaceDesign SpaceStiffened LinksUnstiffened Links
ρ
ρ = 1.6yfFE0.64
ftb
ywFE1.67
ywFE0.64
wtd
Steel Plate Shear Walls Steel Plate Shear Walls
Steel Panel Shear Walls (SPSW)Steel Panel Shear Walls (SPSW)
Lateral force-resisting system New or retrofit constructionThin steel panel added as an infill to a building’s structural frameIncreases stiffness and strength
Increased usage in Asia and North America in recent years
Building frame with SPSW
AISC Guide Design of SPSWAISC Guide Design of SPSW((SabelliSabelli and Bruneau 2006)and Bruneau 2006)
Review of implementations to dateReview of research resultsDesign requirements and processDesign examples
Region of moderate seismicityRegion of high seismicity
Other design considerations (openings, etc.)
Examples of ImplementationExamples of Implementation(Canada)(Canada)
Courtesy Louis Crepeau, Groupe Teknika, Montreal, Canada
8
Examples of ImplementationExamples of Implementation(Mexico)(Mexico)
Courtesy Martinez Romero, Mexico
Examples of ImplementationExamples of Implementation(USA)(USA)
Courtesy John Hooper, Magnusson-Klemencic Associates, Seattle
Examples of ImplementationExamples of Implementation(USA)(USA)
Courtesy Matthew Eatherton – GFDS Engineers San Francisco, CA
Example of Implementation Example of Implementation (USA) (USA) –– Hospital RetrofitHospital Retrofit
Courtesy Jay Love, Degenkolb Engineers, San Francisco
Bottom story “anchor” beam
Top story “anchor” beam
Inte
rmed
iate
bea
ms
Panel
TFAForce
s
SPSW Infillpanel (TYP)
Background of SPSW DesignBackground of SPSW Design Diagonal tension in steel plate Diagonal tension in steel plate shear wall web plateshear wall web plate
diagonalfolds
tensilestresses
lateralload
α
angle ofinclination
HBE
HBE
VBE Web plate
9
Analogy to TensionAnalogy to Tension--only only Braced FrameBraced Frame
Flat bar braceVery large brace slenderness (e.g. in excess of 200)
V
Pinched hysteretic curvesIncreasing drift to dissipate further hysteretic energyNot permitted by AISC Seismic ProvisionsPermitted by CSA-S16 within specific limits of application
Analogy to TensionAnalogy to Tension--only only Braced FrameBraced Frame
Steps to “transform”into a SPSW1) Replace braces by infill plate (like adding braces)
V
Anchor Beam
Analogy to TensionAnalogy to Tension--only only Braced FrameBraced Frame
Steps to “transform”into a SPSW1) Replace braces by infill plate (like adding braces)2) For best seismic performance, fully welded beam-column connections
V
EndEnd--ResultResult
Cyclic (Seismic) behavior of SPSWSum of
Fuller hysteresisprovided by moment connectionsStiffness and redundancy provided by infill plate
V
Bottom story “anchor” beam
Top story “anchor” beam
Inte
rmed
iate
bea
ms
Panel
TFAForce
s
SPSW Infillpanel (TYP)
Background of SPSW DesignBackground of SPSW Design
Similar to Plate Girder behavior but…
10
ButBut……SPSWsSPSWs are NOT Plate Girdersare NOT Plate Girders
Berman, J., Bruneau, M., (2004). “Steel Plate Steel Plate Shear Walls are not Plate GirdersShear Walls are not Plate Girders”, AISC Engineering Journal.Seismic design provisions specifically developed for SPSW must provide:
Design procedure (and, in commentary, modeling guidance) based onCapacity design approach with clear hierarchy of yielding
Plastic Analysis ApproachPlastic Analysis Approach
Yielding stripsPlastic Hinges
For designstrength, neglectplastic hingescontribution
hM
LtFV py
⋅+⋅⋅⋅⋅=
42sin
21 α
Berman/Bruneau June 12 2002 TestBerman/Bruneau June 12 2002 Test
L/tw = 3740h/L = 0.5(centerline
dimensions)
Example of Structural FuseExample of Structural Fuse
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3Drift (%)
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
Bas
e S
hear
(kN
)
Specimen F2Boundary Frame
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3Drift (%)
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
Base
She
ar (k
N)
From Driver et. Al (1997)
Accuracy of modelAccuracy of model
11
Steel Plate Shear Walls (SPSW)Steel Plate Shear Walls (SPSW)
Roofbeam
Foundationbeam
Intermediatebeams
HorizontalBoundaryElements(HBEs)
Columns(Vertical
BoundaryElements,
VBEs)
Steelplates
VBE Design ProcedureVBE Design ProcedureSpecimen P at 3.0% DriftSpecimen P at 3.0% Drift
Specimen CR at 4.0% DriftSpecimen CR at 4.0% Drift
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80Displacement (mm)
Tota
l For
ce (k
N)
-4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4%
Specimen Specimen CRCR
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80Displacement (mm)
Tota
l For
ce (k
N)
-4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4%
Specimen Specimen S2S2
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80Displacement (mm)
Tota
l For
ce (k
N)
-4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4%
Specimen PSpecimen P
12
Single Strip InvestigationSingle Strip Investigation(building blocks of the full infill)(building blocks of the full infill)
RF Model: Deformed Shape (1)RF Model: Deformed Shape (1)At monitored strain At monitored strain εεmaxmax = 20%, D = 200 mm (D/S= 20%, D = 200 mm (D/Sdiagdiag = 0.471)= 0.471)
Deformation Scale Factor = 1.0
RF Model: Deformed Shape (2)RF Model: Deformed Shape (2)At monitored strain At monitored strain εεmaxmax = 20%, D = 200 mm (D/S= 20%, D = 200 mm (D/Sdiagdiag = 0.471)= 0.471)
Deformation Scale Factor = 2.0
• Maximum peak: 67.9 mm
• Maximum valley: -67.5 mm
• Between holes: 60.4 mm
RF Model: Typical Panel ResultsRF Model: Typical Panel ResultsAt monitored strain At monitored strain εεmaxmax = 20%, D = 200 mm (D/S= 20%, D = 200 mm (D/Sdiagdiag = 0.471)= 0.471)
Maximum In-Plane Principal Strain Contours
Uniform Distributed Strip Axial Strain Uniform Distributed Strip Axial Strain εεunun versus Perforation Ratio versus Perforation Ratio D/D/SSdiagdiag Infill Shear Strength: RF ModelInfill Shear Strength: RF Model
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0D/Sdiag
Vyp.
perf
/ Vyp
Predicted (Eq. 4.3)γ = 5%γ = 4%γ = 3%γ = 2%γ = 1%Linear Reg.
51.5%
ypperfyp VSdiag
DV ⋅⎥⎦⎤
⎢⎣⎡ −= 1. α
α = 0.7correction factor:
13
Steel Plate Shear Walls (SPSW)Steel Plate Shear Walls (SPSW)
Roofbeam
Foundationbeam
Intermediatebeams
HorizontalBoundaryElements(HBEs)
Columns(Vertical
BoundaryElements,
VBEs)
Steelplates
Specimen before TestsSpecimen before Tests
Experimental ProgramExperimental Program
Phase I: Pseudo-dynamic load to an earthquake having a 2% in 50 years probability of occurrence. (Chi_Chi_CTU082EW--2╱50 PGA=0.67g)Cut-out and replace webs at both levelsPhase II: Repeat of pseudo-dynamic load to an earthquake having a 2% in 50 years probability of occurrence.Subsequently cyclic load to failure.
Web replacementWeb replacement
Buckled web plate from first pseudo-dynamic test cut out and new web plate welded in place
PseudoPseudo--dynamic Test (contdynamic Test (cont’’d)d) PseudoPseudo--dynamic Test (contdynamic Test (cont’’d)d)
1st story 2nd story
Specimen after the maximum peak drifts of 2.6% at lower story and 2.3% at upper story in pseudo-dynamic test.
14
Subsequently Cyclic Test Subsequently Cyclic Test Subsequently Cyclic Test (contSubsequently Cyclic Test (cont’’d)d)Failure Modes: Failure occurred in the load transfer mechanism, i.e. through the upper concrete slab of the specimen.
Severe plate damage and intermediate beam damage also occurred at drifts between 2.5% and 5%
Subsequently Cyclic Test (contSubsequently Cyclic Test (cont’’d)d)
Specimen after interstory drift of 5%
Severe plate damage and intermediate beam damage also occurred at drifts between 2.5% and 5%
1st Story after interstory drift of 5%
2nd story after interstory drift of 5%
Subsequently Cyclic Test (contSubsequently Cyclic Test (cont’’d)d)
Fractures close to RBS connection at the north end of intermediate beam after interstory drift of 5%
Subsequently Cyclic Test (contSubsequently Cyclic Test (cont’’d)d)
Fractures close to RBS connection at the south end of intermediate beam after interstory drift of 5%
Subsequently Cyclic Test (contSubsequently Cyclic Test (cont’’d)d)
15
Simulation of PseudoSimulation of Pseudo--dynamic Testdynamic TestSimulation of PseudoSimulation of Pseudo--dynamic Testdynamic Test
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00Time (Sec)
2F D
ispl
acem
ent (
mm
)
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00Time (Sec)
1F D
ispl
acem
ent (
mm
)
Strong Ground Motion
Strong Ground Motion
Simulation of PseudoSimulation of Pseudo--dynamic Testdynamic Test
-5000
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3DRIFT-1F (%)
STOR
Y SH
EAR-
1F (k
N)
STRIP-25
PSEUDO-DYNAMIC TEST
-5000
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3DRIFT-2F (%)
STOR
Y SH
EAR-
2F (k
N)
STRIP-25
PSEUDO-DYNAMIC TEST
Simulation of Monotonic PushoverSimulation of Monotonic Pushover
-6000
-4000
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6DRIFT-1F (%)
STOR
Y SH
EAR-
1F (k
N)
3D-SHELL
Cy clic Test
-6000
-4000
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6DRIFT-2F (%)
STOR
Y SH
EAR-
2F (k
N)
3D-SHELL
Cy clic Test
Simulation of Monotonic PushoverSimulation of Monotonic PushoverPlastic Analysis ApproachPlastic Analysis Approach
Yielding stripsPlastic Hinges
For designstrength, neglectplastic hingescontribution
hM
LtFV py
⋅+⋅⋅⋅⋅=
42sin
21 α
16
Plastic Strength of SPSWPlastic Strength of SPSW
Plastic strength of uniformly yielded SPSW (Berman and Bruneau, 2003)
( ) ( )11 0 1
Contribution of HBE Contribution of Infill Panels
1 sin(2 )2i i
n n n
i i pl pr wi wi yp i ii i i
F h M M t t F LH α+= = =
= + + −∑ ∑ ∑1442443 1444442444443
Plastic strength of SPSW system includes contributions of infill panels and boundary frame. AISC Seismic Provisions assumes 100% of story shear is resisted by infill panel.
Single Story SPSW ExampleSingle Story SPSW ExampleDesign
L
α
h
Force assigned to infill panel
( )1 sin 22design yp wV f t Lhκ α⋅ =
Contribution of HBEContribution of Infill Panels
1 sin(2 )2plastic pl pr yp wV h M M f t Lh α⋅ = + +
14243 144424443
Capacity design of HBE (Darren and Bruneau, 2005) 2 2
2
cos 14 1 1
ypwb
yb
fL tZf
α
β
⋅ ⋅= ⋅ ⋅
+ −
Plastic strength of SPSW (Berman and Bruneau, 2003)
Design
L
α
h
Single Story SPSW ExampleSingle Story SPSW ExampleSingle Story SPSW ExampleSingle Story SPSW Example
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1κ
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
V pla
stic
/ Vde
sign
L/h=0.8L/h=1.00L/h=1.5L/h=2L/h=2.5
Overstrength from capacity design
Balance point
Design force to be assigned to boundary moment frame
45α = o
1.0β =
1
2
112 1 1
balanceLh
βκβ
−⎡ ⎤
= + ⋅⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥+ −⎣ ⎦
MultiMulti--story SPSWstory SPSW
( )
1
1
2
11 tan2 1 1ibalance i
i
Lh
βκ αβ
−
−⎡ ⎤
= + ⋅ ⋅⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥+ −⎣ ⎦
results in { {
strength demandii DF F=
=>
Design lateral force on SPSW
Modified lateral force to size infill panels
κnFDn
κiFDi
κi+1FDi+1
κi-1FDi-1
Fn
Fi+1
Fi
Fi-1
Lateral force applied to develop uniform yielding mechanism
FDn
FDi+1
FDi
FDi-1
hi-1
hi
hi+1
hn
LForce Used to Size Infill PanelsForce Used to Size Infill Panels
AISC
Proposed
where
( )
1
1
2
11 tan2 1 1
i ii
Lh
βκ αβ
−
−⎡ ⎤
= + ⋅ ⋅⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥+ −⎣ ⎦
i j
n
p Dj i
V F=
= ∑
i j
n
p j Dj i
V Fκ=
= ∑
FDn
FDi+1
FDi
FDi-1
SPSW
hi-1
hi
hi+1
hn
17
Four eight-story SPSWs using different design assumptions to size the infill panels. (per AISC, Proposed, 75% and 40% respectively). Aspect ratio (L/h) is 1.8 in this study.
Case StudyCase Study
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00Period (Sec)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
PSa
(g)
Location: Northridge (Zip: 91326)
Site class: B
2.138SS g= 1 0.744S g=Per USGS
Determined from deterministic limit earthquake on the known active faults around Northridge. (Equivalent to 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years)
Case StudyCase StudySummary of designed infill panels
Modified Story Shear (kip) Infill panel thickness (in) Story Level
Elevation (ft)
Lateral Force(kip) AISC proposed 75% 40% AISC proposed 75% 40%
8 80 127.1 127.1 113.0 95.3 50.8 0.033 0.029 0.025 0.013 7 70 137.9 264.9 233.6 198.7 106.0 0.069 0.060 0.051 0.027 6 60 117.9 382.8 335.5 287.1 153.1 0.099 0.087 0.074 0.040 5 50 97.9 480.7 422.9 360.5 192.3 0.124 0.109 0.093 0.050 4 40 78.0 558.7 492.0 419.0 223.5 0.144 0.127 0.108 0.058 3 30 58.2 616.9 542.8 462.7 246.8 0.160 0.140 0.120 0.064 2 20 38.5 655.5 575.8 491.6 262.2 0.170 0.149 0.127 0.068 1 10 19.0 674.5 590.1 505.9 269.8 0.174 0.153 0.131 0.070
Case StudyCase Study
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
AISC PROPOSED 75% 40%
Wei
ght (
lb)
Panel HBE VBE Total
Note: HBEs in the weak-infill SPSW (40%) are sized using method (II)
Case StudyCase Study
Nonlinear time history analysis to assess performance of SPSWs using different design assumptions.Verified dual strip model (Qu and Bruneau, 2007)Target acceleration spectra compatible time histories (Papageorgiou, 2004).
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00Period (Sec)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
PSa
(g)
Realization-1Realization-2Realization-3Target design spectrum
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Time (Sec)
-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
Realization-1
Realization-2
Realization-3
Case StudyCase Study
0 1 2 3 4 5Story Drift (%)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Stor
y Le
vel
8-Story SPSW Nolinear Time History Analysis
(Case: EQ2)
AISCPROPOSED75%40%
Preliminary ResultsPreliminary Results
Note: HBEs in the weak-infill SPSW (40%) are sized using method (II)
18
Things to be consideredThings to be considered
Ductile hysteretic loops Pinched hysteretic loops
“…Structural systems with larger energy dissipation capacity have larger Rd values, and hence are assigned higher R values, resulting in design for lower forces, than systems with relatively limited energy dissipation capacity… ” (from Page.37, FEMA 450 Commentary)
Blast Resistance of SPSWBlast Resistance of SPSW
Courtesy of John Pao, BPA Group, Bellevue, WA
Blast Resistance of SPSWBlast Resistance of SPSW Blast Resistance of SPSWBlast Resistance of SPSW
Blast Resistance of SPSWBlast Resistance of SPSW ConclusionsConclusionsRecently developed options for seismic design and retrofit illustrated (BRB with Fuse, TEBF, Rocking, SPSW)Instances for which replacement of sacrificial structural members (considered to be structural fuses dissipating hysteric energy) was accomplished, in some cases repeatedly. On-going research is expanding range of applicability
Reducing demands on SPSW boundary elementsMulti-hazard applications
Article/Clauses for the design of some of these systems are being considered by:
CSA-S16 committee for 2009 Edition of S16AISC TC9 Subcommittee for the 2010 AISC Seismic Provisions
19
Thank you!Thank you!
Questions?Questions?
Recommended