CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

1/29

CSA-S16-09

Modifications to Clause 27

Robert Tremblaycole Polytechnique, Montral

CIV6510

R. Tremblay, cole Polytechnique, Montral

Hiver 2012

S16-09 Art icle 2727.1 General Requirements

27.2 - 4 Moment-Resisting Frames

27.5 - 6 Concentrically Braced Frames

27.7 Eccentrically Braced Frames

27.8 Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames

-.

27.11 Conventional Construction

27.12 Special Seismic Construct ions

R. Tremblay, cole Polytechnique de Montral 2

8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

2/29

27.1 General Requirements

Scope of Clause 27

pper m on se sm c orces

Gravity load carrying systems

RyFy for HSS members (bracing members)

Protected zones


Scope of Clause 27

S16-09


8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

3/29

Upper limit on seismic forces

S16-01

Harmonisation entre CSA-S16 et CNBC :

S16-01


CNBC 2005

CNBC 2010

S16-09


8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

4/29

Design shear forces for spl icesin gravity columns

Rotation dansles assemblages

Flexion dans les poteaux


S16-01

S16-09


8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

5/29

RyFy for HSS members

Liu, J., Sabelli, R., Brockenbrough, R.L., Fraser, T.

i l il i2007. Expected yield stress and tensile strength ratios

for determination of expected member capacity in 2005

AISC seismic provisions. AISC Eng. J., 1st Quarter, pp.

15-25.

Schimdt, B.J. and Bratleet,F.M. 2002. Review of

resistance factor for steel: data collection. Can. J.

Civ. Eng. , 29, pp. 98-108.


AISC 2005 :

-

1.4 x 345

= 480 MPa


8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

6/29

S16-09

Axial loads imposed by bracing members

Net section failure for bracing members


Stabili ty effects

S16-09


8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

7/29

xx FHV

VU V

V'

y

y2

y

Notional Loads + P-delta effects (U2) for:

2x U

C /hf

max

1

1.3 R V / y rNo notional loads


1.3 R V /

1.3 R V /

y

y

r

r

no - e a e ec s 2 or:

Protected zonesS16-09


8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

8/29

S16-09

MRFs

CBFs

EBFs


S16-09


8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

9/29

Protected zones

27.2-4 MRFs


Minimum KL/r value for HSS bracingmembers

27.5 & 6 CBFs

Ax ial loads imposed by bracing members(clarifications & simplifications)

Bracing members meeting columns

between floors Protected zones


8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

10/29

.

ff

-

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

P

/AgFy f

Minimum KL/r for HSS bracing members

15

20

25

Fracture,f

y

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10

KL/r = 93HSS 127x76x4.8

KL/r = 142HSS 76x76x4.8

yy

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

-1.2

-0.8

- .

KL/r = 42HSS 254x254x12

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Brace Slenderness,= (Fy/ Fe)0.5

0

5

10

Ductility

at f= 2.4 + 8.3

Northridge 1994P. Maranian, Brandow & Assoc. Tremblay (2002)

cole Polytechnique 2008


S16-09

LN

H

KLout 0.9 LHKLin 0.5 LN

KLout0.5 LHKLin 0.5 LN


8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

11/29

Axial loads imposed by bracing members

P

f

P

f

P

f

P

f

Tu

u

Tu

u

1.0

Tu

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

P

/AgFy

y

HSS 127x76x4.78G40.21-350W (CAT. C)KL/r = 93Cu

Cu


S16-09


8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

12/29

Braces meeting columns between floorsR Ro d f

S16-09 Only permitted for Type LD (Rd= 2.0)


27.7 EBFs

Buil t-up rectangular tubular link beams

Flexural demand on columns

Protected zones


8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

13/29

Buil t-up rectangular tubular link beams

Contreventement non requispour le segment ductile !

Berman, J.W, and Bruneau, M. 2008. Tubular Links forEccentrically Braced Frames I: Finite Element Parametric Study.ASCE J. Struct. Eng., Vol. 134, No. 5, pp . 692-701.


S16-09


8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

14/29

S16-09


...

S16-09


8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

15/29

Class for beams outside the links

S16-09


Flexural demand on columnsS16-01

S16-09 (propos)


8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

16/29

1.0

2.0

y

27.8 Buckling Restrained Braced Frames(New Clause)

-12.0 -8.0 -4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0

y

-2.0

-1.0

0.0V/

P. Bolduc, cole Polytechnique 2002

Qubec City (1999)


R = 3.0T = 0.57 s

1750

4660

R = 4.0T = 0.72 s

1330

2800

CBF BRBF

8 740

0 3380

2330

5 530

0 2200

1400

18 210

1990 7390

9 590

100 3910


8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

17/29

Expected behaviour

Configurations & height l imits

Sections on :

Factored resistance of BRB members

Axial loads imposed by BRB members

Design of connections, beams, andco umns

Testing requirements Protected zones


S16-09


8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

18/29

S16-09


NBCC 2010 (proposed)


8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

19/29

27.9 Plate Walls (Type D)

Storey shear resistance

Optimized design of infil l plates

Corner cut-outs

Capacity design requirements


Storey shear resistance

Vmf

V

+ ==wV

Vr = Vrw

Vrw = 0.5 Fy w L sin(2 ) > Vf

Vrmf = 2 Mpb/ hs > 0.25 VfR. Tremblay, cole Polytechnique de Montral 38

8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

20/29

S16-09


S16-09


8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

21/29

Optimization of infi ll plates

Use of thin infill plates

Berman, J.W. and Bruneau, M. 2005. ExperimentalInvestigation of Light-Gauge Steel Plate ShearWalls. ASCE J. of Struct. Eng., 131, 2, 259-267.

0.9 mm thick ASTM A1008 (cold-rolled, carbon, commercialsteel sheet)


Perforated infill plates

Vian, D. and Bruneau, M. 2004. Testing of SpecialLYS Steel Plate Shear walls. Proc. 13 th WCEE,

Vancouver, BC. Paper No. 978.


Purba, R. and Bruneau, M. 2007. DesignRecommendations for Perforated SteelPlate Shear Walls. Report MCEER-07-0011,SUNY Buffalo, NY.

8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

22/29

S16-09

+ information on stiffness calculation givenin the Commentary



8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

23/29

Corner cut-outs

Vian, D. and Bruneau, M. 2004. Testing of SpecialLYS Steel Plate Shear walls. Proc. 13 th WCEE,

Vancouver, BC. Paper No. 978.

Purba, R. and Bruneau, M. 2007.Design Recommendations forPerforated Steel Plate Shear

Walls. Report MCEER-07-0011,SUNY Buffalo, NY.


S16-09

See the Commentary for information on the design of thearching reinforcement and of the beams and columnsadjacent to corner cut-outs


8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

24/29

Capacity design

1.1R M'V

C

y

i+1

pb,i

b,i

bl,i Tw,i+1

Gravity

Tw,i+1 Tw,i+1

Gravity

1.1R M'

V

y

i

br,i

,

L'

Tw,i

Tw = RyFyw < forces corresponding to RoRd = 1.3

L'

Tw,i Tw,i


S16-09


8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

25/29

S16-09


27.10 Limited ductil ity (Type LD)plate walls

New clause

Addi tional requirements have beenintroduced to ensure adequate inelasticresponse


8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

26/29

S16-01

S16-09


CNBC 2010 (proposed)


8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

27/29

27.11 Conventional Construction

Harmonization with NBCC for metal roof

Structures taller than 15 m


Design of diaphragms

S16-09 (no change)

Harmonization between CSA-S16 & NBCC:

=> Loads obtained using RdRo = 1.95 (if ductile connections)RdRo = 1.30 (otherwise)


8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

28/29

NBCC 2010 (proposed)


Structures taller than 15 mNBCC 2010 (proposed)


8/10/2019 CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09

29/29

S16-09


Documents

CIV6510 2012 Tremblay S16-09