5/30/2012

Composite and Modular Structures, Part 2

ACI Spring 2012 Convention March 18 21, Dallas, TX

Steven J. Mitchell received his Bachelors of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Trine (formerly Tri-State) University in 2009. Before enrolling in graduate school at the University of Cincinnati in September, 2010, he worked for a consulting firm in South Bend, IN, where he is originally from, called Lawson-Fisher Associates P.C. He is currently in his second year of graduate studies at the University of Cincinnati, pursuing his Masters of Science in Civil Engineering. A Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) experience at UC during the summer of 2007 instilled in him the desire to pursue graduate studies, and most notably research within academics. Upon completion of his masters degree, he is considering pursuing a doctorate degree at the University of Cincinnati, while at the same time searching for future employment as a civil engineer in the Midwest and elsewhere in the United States.

The development of a replaceable (steel fuse) coupling beam for coupled core wall systems
Steven J. Mitchell Graduate student, University of Cincinnati Gian A. Rassati Associate professor, University of Cincinnati Bahram M. Shahrooz Professor, University of Cincinnati

Presentation Outline
Background: Steel Coupling Beams (SCBs), and Steel Fuse Coupling Beams (SFCBs) Methodology of SFCBs Previous SFCB experiment Proposed design procedure Prototype Design and Analytical modeling Preliminary results Half-scale testing of SFCB

Background
Efficient Lateral Force Resisting System (LFRS)

Background
Efficient Lateral Force Resisting System (LFRS) Application to building structures

5/30/2012

Background
Efficient Lateral Force Resisting System (LFRS) Application to building structures Types of coupling beams
Reinforced concrete Diagonally reinforced concrete Conventional steel

Background
Efficient Lateral Force Resisting System (LFRS) Application to building structures Types of coupling beams Conventional Steel
Significant advantages include:
Superior strength and stiffness in coupled core wall systems Ductility and energy dissipation capacities Performance under cyclic loads

Background
Efficient Lateral Force Resisting System (LFRS) Application to building structures Types of coupling beams Methodology for a Steel Fuse Coupling Beam, how will it perform, and why is this desirable?

Methodology
Seismic response of structures Localized, controlled damage Steel links in eccentrically braced frames (EBFs) Protect the elements surrounding the link from yielding

Methodology
Localize damage in a central fuse section Surrounding beam components remain elastic Has the same advantages as conventional steel coupling beams

Previous SFCB Experiment

First generation developed at the University of Cincinnati (Fortney, 2005) Design procedure based on arbitrary strength values to achieve performance.

5/30/2012

Proposed Design Procedure

1. Determine the load demands on a single coupling beam, both shear and moment a) 2. The fuse section is designed to resist these forces and must be designed FIRST Check limiting 3.
(1.6) M p Vp

Proposed Design Procedure

Determine fuse length to ensure it is shear-critical:
e

Design the fuse a) b) Shear Capacity: Flexural Capacity:

Vnf 0.6 Fy hwf t wf

width-thickness ratios:

Where:

M p M pf

V p Vnf

M nf M pf Fy z f

4.

Use the EXPECTED shear strength of the fuse to determine the loads imparted to the surrounding embedded beams:

Proposed Design Procedure

4. Use the EXPECTED shear strength of the fuse to determine the loads imparted to the surrounding embedded beams: Vf , exp Vu ,emb 1.1RyVnf 5.

Proposed Design Procedure

Design the embedded beams a) Shear Capacity: Vne 0.6 Fy hwe t we M y Fy S e b) Flexural Capacity:

Check limiting width-thickness ratios:

6.

Design the bolted and welded connections

Proposed Design Procedure

7. Design the coupling beam within the reinforced concrete wall piers a) Embedment length b) Auxiliary transfer bars c) Detailing Perform necessary limitstate checks on beam elements and connecting elements.

Analytical Modeling
Elastic design/analysis completed using software package ETABS Adaptive pushover analysis completed using the software package Ruaumoko. Dynamic response history analyses completed using the software package Ruaumoko, with the following ground motions considered (further records to be added later):
Ruaumoko BuildingModel 1 2 3 4 5 6 DynamicForces Adaptive Pushover ASCEDesignEarthquake ASCEMCEarthquake ElCentroEarthquake NorthridgeEarthquake @ SylmarHospital NorthridgeEarthquake @ PacoimaDam Analysis PeakAcceleration (g) Time(s) 100 30 30 20 40 60 N/A 1.050 1.575 0.348 0.798 1.492

8.

5/30/2012

Analytical Modeling
The following response quantities are of interest in the analyses:
20

Prototype Building Design

Each floor level coupling beam is designed such that the fuse is capable of resisting design-level demands.
Coupling Beam Shear Demand Vs. Capacity
18 16 14
Floor Level

1. 2. 3. 4.

Building drift information residual effects Status of coupling beams throughout the ground motion Peak rotations witnessed by coupling beams Load demands on wall piers base shears and moments

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 100 200 300 400 Shear (Kips) 500 600 700

Embedded Beam Shear Capacities 1.1RyVn, Fuses Shear Demands Fuse Shear Capacities

Prototype Building Design

Each floor level coupling beam is designed such that the fuse is capable of resisting design-level demands.
Coupling Beam Moment Demand Vs. Capacity
20 18 14
Floor Level Floor Level

Prototype Building Design

Normalized Story Drift
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2

16 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Moment (Kip-Feet) 1400 1600 1800
Moment Demands Fuse Moment Capacities Embedded Beam Moment Capacities

0 0.00%

0.20%

0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% Inter-story Drift (% Story Height)

1.20%

1.40%

Analytical Modeling Pushover Analysis

Normalized Story Drift
20 18 16
Percent of ELF Base Shear (%)
200% 180% 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20%

Analytical Modeling Pushover Analysis

Fuse yield progression during pushover:
Progression of Fuses Yielding Fuses at level 4 Fuses at level 20

14
Floor Level

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0.00%

Base Shear Vs. Roof Deflection Fuses Yielding

0.10%

0.20% 0.30% 0.40% 0.50% Inter-story Drift (% Story Height)

0.60%

0.70%

0% 0.00%

0.10%

0.20% 0.30% 0.40% Roof Deflection (% of Building Height)

0.50%

0.60%

5/30/2012

Analytical Modeling Response Histories

Earthquake Ground Motions:
El Centro Record
Peak Acceleration = 0.348 g

Analytical Modeling Response Histories

Artificial Earthquake Ground Motions:
Design Earthquake Record
1.5

Acceleration (g)

0.4

Acceleration (g)

1 0.5 0 0 -0.5 1

Peak Acceleration = 1.04 g

0.2 0 0 -0.2 -0.4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Northridge (Sylmar) Record

Time Step (seconds)
Acceleration (g)
1 0.5 0 0 -0.5 -1 Time Step (seconds) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Peak Acceleration = 0.798 g

Time Step (seconds)

2

MC Earthquake Record
Acceleration (g)
1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 0 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6
Peak Acceleration = 1.54 g

Time Step (seconds)

Analytical Modeling Response Histories

Top Floor Drifts All Earthquakes:
Shear (Kips)

Analytical Modeling Response Histories

Steel Fuses Shear Performance:
EC Shear Analysis, Floors 5-8
2000 1500 1000 500 0 -500 0 -1000 -1500 -2000
Pos Design Shear Strength Neg Design Shear Strength Floor 8 Floor 7

Top Floor Drifts

25 20 15
Top Floor Drift (inches)

10

11

12

13

14

15

Floor 6 Floor 5 Pos Expected Shear Strength

10 5 0 -5 0 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35

Peak Drift = -29.8 IN (2.48 FT) = 1.38% Building Height
El Centro

Time Step (seconds)

Neg Expected Shear Strength

2.5

7.5

10

12.5

15

Northridge Shear Analysis, Floors 5-8

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 -500 0 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500 -3000

Design EQ Northridge MC Earthquake

Shear (Kips)

Pos Design Shear Strength Neg Design Shear Strength Floor 8 Floor 7

10

11

12

13

14

15

Floor 6 Floor 5 Pos Expected Shear Strength Neg Expected Shear Strength

Time Step (Seconds)

Time Step (seconds)

Analytical Modeling Response Histories

Steel Fuses Shear Performance:
Design EQ Shear Analysis, Floors 5-8
2000 1500 1000 500 0 -500 0 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500

Analytical Modeling Response Histories

Pos Design Shear Strength Neg Design Shear Strength Floor 8

Shear (Kips)

Steel Fuses Time of First Yielding:

El Centro Ground Motion
20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.40

10

11

12

13

14

15

Floor 7 Floor 6 Floor 5

Peak Acceleration = 0.348 g

0.30

Time Step (seconds)

Pos Expected Shear Strength

0.10 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 -0.30

MCE Shear Analysis, Floors 5-8

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 -500 0 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500 -3000
Pos Design Shear Strength Neg Design Shear Strength Floor 8

Shear (Kips)

10

Floor 7 Floor 6 Floor 5 Pos Expected Shear Strength

10

11

12

13

14

15

Time Step (seconds)

Neg Expected Shear Strength

Time Step (seconds)

Acceleration (g)

0.20

Floor Level

5/30/2012

Analytical Modeling Response Histories

Steel Fuses Time of First Yielding:
Northridge (Sylmar) Ground Motion
20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1.00

Analytical Modeling Response Histories

Steel Fuses Time of First Yielding:
Design Earthquake Ground Motion
20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1.20

Peak Acceleration = 1.04 g

1.00

Peak Acceleration = 0.798 g

0.80 0.60

Acceleration (g)

Floor Level

0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80

0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 -0.20 -0.40

4 5 6 Time Step (seconds)

10

2
Time Step (seconds)

Analytical Modeling Response Histories

Analytical Modeling Response Histories

Steel Fuses Time of First Yielding:
Axial Load (kips)

Wall Pier Integrity El Centro Earthquake:

Base Level Wall Pier Demands
80,000

Floor 13 Wall Piers Demands

70,000

Axial Load (kips)

60,000 40,000 20,000

Left Pier Demands Right Pier Demands

60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 -50,000 -10,000 0 -20,000 50,000

Left Pier Demands Right Pier Demands

MC Earthquake Ground Motion

20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2.00

Peak Acceleration = 1.54 g

1.50

0 -200,000 -150,000 -100,000 -50,000 0 -20,000

50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000

-150,000 -100,000

100,000

150,000

Acceleration (g)

-40,000 -60,000

Floor Level

1.00

Moment (k-ft) Floor 5 Wall Pier Demands

80,000 Left Pier Demands Right Pier Demands

Moment (k-ft)
Axial Load (kips)

0.50

60,000 40,000 20,000

0.00

-0.50

-1.00

2
Time Step (seconds)

The outline represents a yield surface for the wall piers at the floor levels presented at the top of the plot.

0 -200,000 -150,000 -100,000 -50,000 0 -20,000 -40,000

50,000 100,000 150,000

Moment (k-ft)

Analytical Modeling Response Histories

Wall Pier Integrity Northridge (Sylmar) Earthquake:
Base Level Wall Pier Demands
Axial Load (kips)
80,000 Left Pier Demands

Analytical Modeling Response Histories

Wall Pier Integrity Design Earthquake:
Base Level Wall Pier Demands
Axial Load (kips)
80,000

Floor 13 Wall Piers Demands

70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 150,000

Floor 13 Wall Piers Demands

70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 150,000 Left Pier Demands Right Pier Demands

Axial Load (kips)

Axial Load (kips)

Left Pier Demands Right Pier Demands

60,000 40,000 20,000

Left Pier Demands Right Pier Demands

60,000 40,000 20,000

Right Pier Demands

0 -200,000-150,000-100,000 -50,000 0 -20,000 -40,000 -60,000

50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000

0 -150,000 -100,000 -50,000 -10,000 0 -20,000

0 -200,000-150,000-100,000 -50,000 0 -20,000 -40,000 -60,000

50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000

0 -150,000 -100,000 -50,000 -10,000 0 -20,000

Moment (k-ft) Floor 5 Wall Pier Demands

Axial Load (kips)
80,000 Left Pier Demands 60,000 40,000 20,000 50,000 100,000 150,000 Right Pier Demands

Moment (k-ft) Floor 5 Wall Pier Demands

80,000

Moment (k-ft)

Moment (k-ft)
Axial Load (kips)

Left Pier Demands 60,000 40,000 20,000 Right Pier Demands

The outline represents a yield surface for the wall piers at the floor levels presented at the top of the plot.

0 -200,000-150,000-100,000 -50,000 0 -20,000 -40,000

Moment (k-ft)

The outline represents a yield surface for the wall piers at the floor levels presented at the top of the plot.

0 -200,000 -150,000 -100,000 -50,000 0 -20,000 -40,000

50,000 100,000 150,000

Moment (k-ft)

Acceleration (g)

0.80

Floor Level

5/30/2012

Analytical Modeling Response Histories

Wall Pier Integrity MC Earthquake:
Base Level Wall Pier Demands
80,000

Half-Scale Experimental Test

70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 Left Pier Demands Right Pier Demands

Floor 13 Wall Piers Demands

Axial Load (kips)

Axial Load (kips)

60,000 40,000 20,000

Half-scale test coupling beam designed from floors 5-8 of the prototype structure Experimental steel fuse coupling beam already fabricated

0 -500,000 -400,000 -300,000 -200,000 -100,000 0 -20,000 Left Pier Demands Right Pier Demands -40,000 -60,000

100,000

200,000

20,000 10,000 0 -150,000 -100,000 -50,000 -10,000 0 -20,000

50,000

100,000 150,000

Moment (k-ft)

Moment (k-ft)
Axial Load (kips)

Floor 5 Wall Pier Demands

80,000 Left Pier Demands Right Pier Demands 60,000 40,000 20,000

The outline represents a yield surface for the wall piers at the floor levels presented at the top of the plot.

0 -200,000 -150,000 -100,000 -50,000 0 -20,000 -40,000

50,000 100,000 150,000

Moment (k-ft)

Half-Scale Experimental Test

Half-scale test coupling beam designed from floors 5-8 of the prototype structure Experimental steel fuse coupling beam already fabricated Instrumentation packages will be used on the fuses, and the embedded beams both outside and inside the reinforced concrete walls Testing schedule is likely for April-May, 2012 Data from experiment will help guide future analytical modeling

Questions ?

Previous test at the University of Cincinnati Large Scale Testing Facility