Eccentric Braced Steel Frames For Wind and Low-to-Moderate Seismic Loads

Eccentric Braced Steel Frames for Wind and Low-to-Moderate Seismic Loads
Author
Summary
Eccentric braced frames (EBFs) are a proven effective, economical method for resisting seismic forces. The concept of an EBF was developed so the frame would have the ductility of a ductile moment resisting space frame and the stiffness approaching that of a concentric braced frame. A vast amount of work has been done at the University of California at Berkeley on the seismic behavior and design of EBFs. As a direct result of this work, an entire section has been written that is devoted to design rules for EBFs in the AISCLRFD Seismic Specifications due for release this year. As early as 1930, it was recognized that it could be advantageous for a building to have wind bracing that was not concentric. Interestingly, almost no work has been done on EBFs for wind load resistance. The work done on the seismic behavior of EBFs, however, can serve as the basis for an initial set of design guidelines for EBFs subject to primarily wind and/or low seismic loads. This paper will present a suggested design approach for these types of EBFs.
Stanley D. Lindsey
Prior to founding Lindsey & Associates in 1967, Dr. Stanley Lindsey was employed by Volunteer Structures, Inc. in Nashville, Tennessee, as chief engineer. He received his doctorate in civil engineering from Vanderbilt University in 1972. He is a registered structural engineer in California, Nevada, Illinois and Washington and a registered professional engineer in more than 40 states. Lindsey is an active member of the AISC, ASCE, the Southern Building Code Congress International, ACI, EERI and the Structural Engineers of Northern California. He is a frequent speaker at professional gatherings and has taught at the University of Tennessee, Vanderbilt University, Clemson University and Tennessee State. Awarded a special citation by AISC in 1972 for outstanding contributions to the design of steel structures, he has served on numerous important committees, including the AISC Committee on Specifications, Specification Task Committee on Seismic Design and the LRFD Task Committee on Stability.
17-1
2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
ECCENTRIC BRACED FRAMES: SUGGESTED DESIGN PROCEDURES FOR WIND AND LOW SEISMIC FORCES
STANLEY D. LINDSEY AND ARVIND V. GOVERDHAN
Introduction
Eccentric Braced Frames (EBFs) are a proven effective, economical method for resisting seismic forces [1,2]. The concept of an EBF was developed so the frame would have the ductility of a ductile moment resisting space frame and the stiffness approaching that of a Concentric Braced Frame (CBF) [2]. A vast amount of work has been done at the University of California at Berkeley on the seismic behavior and design of EBFs [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12, 13, 14]. As a direct result of this work, an entire section has been written that is devoted to design rules for EBFs in the AISC-LRFD Seismic Specifications due for release this year [15]. As early as 1930, it was recognized that it could be advantageous for a building to have wind bracing that was not concentric [16]. Interestingly, almost no work has been done directly on EBFs for wind load resistance. The work done on the seismic behavior of EBFs can, however, serve as the basis for an initial set of design guidelines for EBFs subject to primarily wind and/or low seismic loads. This paper will present a suggested design approach for these types of EBFs.
Stanley D. Lindsey, Ph.D., S.E., is President of Stanley D. Lindsey & Associates, Ltd., Nashville, Tennessee.
Arvind V. Goverdhan, Ph.D., Researcher and Structural Engineer at Stanley D. Lindsey & Associates. Ltd.. Nashville. Tennessee.________________
17-3
General Discussion
Seismic considerations excluded, an EBF has two major advantages over a CBF. It offers architectural flexibility and it has less complicated, hence less expensive, connections. The ability to offset a brace can make the use of an EBF possible in a given architectural layout where it would be impossible to use a CBF. Figure 1. illustrates just such a case; here the EBF allows a door to be used adjacent to the column. The fact that the brace axis does not have to intersect the center of gravity of the column and girder greatly simplifies the girder to column connection. Figures 2. and 3., respectively, show a normal CBF girder to column connection, and the simpler girder to column connection with an EBF. If the EBF offers more architectural freedom and is less expensive, why then has the EBF not received more attention by the design community? Some possible reasons can be postulated. First, until the research on the seismic behavior of EBF, no one really could say with certainty what the actual behavior and collapse mechanisms for an EBF were. Secondly, the EBF was thought to be a much less stiff system than a CBF and was not considered as a good design alternate due to this perception. Finally, it was considered to be "just good design practice" to have all connections concentric; one never purposely had connection eccentricity!
Seismic research for EBFs has answered many of the questions of behavior and collapse [3, 9, 13]. Stiffness has been studied and shown to be much better than thought [9]. The research has shown that connection eccentricity is not detrimental to the EBF, but quite the contrary, if done properly it actually enhances performance [3, 9, 13].
Take stiffness for example, Figure 4. shows several arrangements of typical EBFs. For various aspect ratios, an important parameter of an EBF is the brace offset (e) versus the girder span (I). Figure 5. shows a plot of e/l versus relative frame stiffness for various aspect ratios of some EBFs. Notice that for a common aspect ratio in buildings, 0.5 for the D types, an e/l of 0.1 (3'-0 offset in a 30-0 span) results in no real loss of stiffness and for an e/l = 0.2 the loss is only in the range of 10 percent. Practically speaking, given proper design, it means one could offset a brace approximately 6 feet on a 30 foot span girder and only suffer an acceptable amount of reduction in frame stiffness. The ability to offset with so little loss in frame stiffness is quite useful in accommodating an architectural layout. Even with the other brace configurations shown in Figure 5., there are similar e/l ratios that can be used that will not sacrifice frame stiffness.
17-4
Fundamental Approach
Figure 6. shows a typical collapse mechanism of a D type EBF with the girder, the columns, the braces, and the links labeled. The link is fundamental to the EBF performance in an EBF. For seismic forces the link is designed to behave inelastically and dissipate energy generally either through shear yielding or moment yielding. In an EBF designed for wind forces, the link remains elastic since the EBF does not have to dissipate large amounts of energy since the actual loads are not several times higher than the design loads. The design problem for an EBF for wind is, therefore, essentially an elastic design problem. The EBF must resist the lateral and vertical loads without a damaging drift level and it must have a proper stiffness for occupant comfort. A seismically designed EBF, on the other hand, must limit drift, provide occupant comfort as well as absorb energy and resist collapse at load levels several times higher than design loads.
The link behavior in an EBF needs some discussion. Kasai, Popov and others have done much work in EBFs performance versus link lengths [5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13]. Both shear and moment yielding of lengths of various lengths have been studied. In addition, web buckling and lateral buckling of the link have also been studied. Based on the work to-date, it seems best to consider only designing EBFs for wind and low seismic forces with links which are short enough to yield in shear rather than in moment. Kasai [9] has found that the maximum link length to allow shear yielding at ultimate loading to be:
(1) where: e = link length to yield in shear defined as clear distance between column face and diagonal
17-5
This value of e is maximum length in the absence of axial force in the link that should be used to ensure that the link yield in shear. With axial load > 0.15), Kasai [9] has formulated modifications to this expression, which can result in a somewhat shorter length.
As part of his work on EBFs, Kasai [9] derived the possible lower bound collapse mechanisms for various configurations of EBFs. He also developed the expressions for the ultimate capacity in terms of a multiplier on lateral loads of these EBFs. He compared his lower bound expressions to a finite element elastoplastic solution and found excellent agreement between the two methods. By having these lower bound solutions, one can easily check the ultimate capacity of an EBF to see if it has adequate collapse resistance without having to do an elasto-plastic finite element analysis. The ability to do this easy check means that for an EBF designed to resist primarily wind loads and remain elastic, a simple direct method is available to check its ultimate capacity. Thus one can use an elastic LRFD procedure to design an EBF and then ensure it has the proper ultimate strength without having to use a finite element elasto-plastic solution.
As an example, for the D-brace frame collapse mechanism shown in Figure 7. and using Figures 7., 8., and 9. for the internal and external work mechanisms, Kasai [9] derived the following lower bound expression for a constant load factor applied to the lateral loads:
(2)
where:
Load Factor on Lateral Loads Girder Span (Feet) Plastic Shear Capacity (kips) Load Intensity (K/Ft)
Link Length (Ft) Depth of Column (Ft) Height at Level i (Ft) Lateral Load at Level (i) (kips)
Thus to check for the multiplier on the lateral loads for this mechanism, all one has to do is substitute into equation (2). To establish ultimate strength, one must check all the possible mechanisms of which this is only one of three for a D type EBF. The reader is referred to Kasai [9] for an in-depth treatment of possible collapse
17-6
mechanisms and load factors for the lateral loads associated with each possible collapse mechanism for several EBF configurations.
Proposed Design Approach
For EBFs in seismic regions, the AISC LRFD seismic specifications have adopted an ultimate strength approach. For EBFs used for wind resistance and small seismic loads, a more familiar elastic approach using LRFD design criteria for member selection and then followed by a check on ultimate capacity is recommended. Total ultimate strength approach for wind EBFs would certainly be acceptable, but given the familiarity of more traditional elastic methods by engineers, the recommended approach seems reasonable.
Additionally, based on the research to-date, limiting the link lengths to ensure shear yielding also seems logical as a first design recommendation. As more experience is gained with actual EBFs, the ultimate strength design approach with lengths either yielding in shear or moment may be possible.
The recommended basic design approach consists of:
A.
Analysis of the structure using a second order linear elastic procedure with factored loads.
B. C.
D. E.
Design of members using LRFD equations. A check of ultimate capacity using the sizes from (B.) and the proper Kasai equations.
Check of the structure for serviceability using Unfactored loads. Revising as required and then recycling steps (A.) through (E.).
The choice of a second order linear elastic procedure as the basis of analysis is done in an effort to get more meaningful analysis results. The analysis should include axial shortening effects in the columns and braces, frame and member effects and should include shear as well as bending deflection contributions of the girders in the EBF. Leaner column effects on the EBFs should also be included in
17-7
the analysis. Considering the leaner column effects will give a more nearly accurate value to true frame drift. Additionally, by using a second order linear analysis that considers all effects, the necessity of computing the LRFD values of for beam column design is eliminated. The example frames shown in Figure 10. were analyzed using a program that allowed all these effects to be considered. The same frames were then re-analyzed ignoring and shear deflections. Comparisons of the deflections, are shown in Table 1. and Figure 12. It is obvious that inclusion of second order effects greatly influence drift; i.e. frame, stiffness. In this case, shear deflections and accounted for a 20 percent increase in total frame drift.
LRFD design was chosen as the recommended method because in all of the work that has been done on EBFs for seismic forces, the basis has been ultimate or limit states behavior. Their application to EBFs for wind is a logical step. Also, it is very easy to extract from the AISC-LRFD Seismic Specifications, which are written in LRFD format and which contain design rules for EBFs, those design rules that apply to EBFs designed for wind forces or low seismic forces [14]. Use of these rules will ensure proper link, hence EBF behavior.
A check on the ultimate capacity is recommended even though the basic approach is elastic. By checking each EBF for its required ultimate capacity, a check on proper stability of the system will be obtained. Kasai has shown that proper orientation of EBFs in a building can enhance the building's lateral force resistance [9]. Therefore, thought should be given to orienting the EBFs to obtain maximum lateral force resistance. Finally, any design must be checked for serviceability. Since the primary function of an EBF is to resist lateral loads, drift and occupant comfort must be obtained through EBF stiffness. Drift in an EBF is much more likely to be a problem than in an CBF. Thus required stiffness of the EBF will play a major role in the final size of members in the EBF.
Suggested Design Guidelines
The following suggested guidelines use as a base the LRFD Seismic Design
17-8
Provisions [15]. As more designs are done on EBFs, some of these suggested guidelines can be liberalized. Additionally, as more work is done on moment links, provisions for them can be added to these guidelines.
1. Links:
A.
The specified minimum yield for links shall not exceed Fy = 50 ksi. All links shall comply with the appropriate limiting width thickness ratios shown in Table B5.1. The shear force in the link produced by the prescribed design forces shall not exceed the design shear strength of the link which is defined as the lesser of /e where = 0.6 = 0.9 and e = link length or defined as follows in (E).
The web of the link shall be single thickness without doubler plate reinforcement and without openings.
B.
C.
D.
If the required strength, in a link at the prescribed design forces is equal to or less than 0.15 where = , it is permitted to neglect the effect of axial force on the link design shear strength. If the required strength, , in a link at the prescribed design forces exceeds 0.15 Py, the following additional requirements shall be met:
E.
F.
The link flanges shall have full penetration welds to the column. The connection of the link web to the column shall be welded to have a design strength to develop the design strength of the link web. .. Where the link is connected to the column web, the link flanges
17-9
shall have full penetration welds to connection plates and the web connection shall be welded to have a design strength to develop the
design strength of the link web.
G.
Link Stiffeners: Full depth web stiffeners shall be provided on both sides of link web at the diagonal brace ends of the link. These stiffeners shall have a combined width not less than and a thickness not less than nor 3/8 inches, whichever is larger, where and are the width of the link flange and link web thickness, respectively.
Links shall be provided with intermediate web stiffeners as follows: . .Links of lengths or less shall be provided with intermediate web stiffeners spaced at intervals not exceeding d/5).
H.
I.
.. Intermediate link web stiffeners shall be full depth. For links less than 24 inches in depth, stiffeners are required on only one side of the link web. The thickness of one-sided stiffeners shall not be less than or 3/8 inch, whichever is larger, and the width shall be not less than For links 24 inches in depth or greater, similar intermediate stiffeners are required on both sides of the web. Fillet welds connecting link stiffener to the link web shall have a design strength adequate to resist a force of The design strength of fillet welds fastening the stiffener to the flanges shall be adequate to resist a force of = bt of the stiffener and b and t are the width and thickness of the stiffener plate, respectively.
Lateral supports shall be provided at both the top and bottom flanges of link at the ends of the link. End lateral supports of links shall have a design strength of 2 percent of the link flange nominal strength computed as
J.
K.
2.
Diagonal Brace and Beam Outside of Link:
A.
The nominal strength of each diagonal brace shall be adequate to
17-10
resist the forces generated by at least 1.2 times the design shear strength of the link.
B.
The sum of the nominal flexural strength of the diagonal brace and of the beam segment outside of the link shall exceed the design link end moment occurring at 1.2 times the design shear strength of the link. The nominal flexural strength of these members shall be determined using interaction equations for combined axial force, and bending moment, using the axial force in the member generated by 1.2 times the design shear strength of the link.
Diagonal brace to link connections shall develop the nominal strength of the diagonal brace and transfer this force to the beam. No part of the diagonal brace to beam connection shall extend over the link length. If the diagonal brace resists a portion of the link end moment as described above, the diagonal brace to beam connection shall be designed as fully restrained (Type FR). The beam outside of the link shall be provided with sufficient lateral support to maintain the stability of the beam under the forces generated by at least 1.2 times the shear design strength of the link. Lateral supports shall be provided at both top and bottom flanges of the beam and shall have a strength to resist at least 2 percent of the beam flange nominal strength computed as Fybf t f .
C.
D.
Following these provisions will ensure shear failure in the link. Thus the behavior at ultimate loads will be as predicted by the equations derived by Kasai [9].
Conclusions
EBFs can be an economical alternative to a CBF for wind and low seismic loads. They offer a great deal more architectural freedom than a CBF and their connections are much simpler than a CBF's connections. With proper consideration to EBF configuration, the loss of stiffness due to eccentricity can be small. By designing to ensure shear rather than moment yielding in the link, an accurate method is available to predict ultimate capacity of an EBF. Combining
17-11
that ability with the proper analysis and LRFD design rules, a safe and economical EBF can be obtained.
17-12
TABLE 1.- LATERAL DEFLECTIONS FOR A 10 STORY D-BRACE FRAME
Load Case: +1.0W +
1.0 D
1.0 L
10
9 8
7
6 5 4 3 2
4.54 4.07 3.52 2.98 2.42 1.93 1.44 1.02 0.63 0.30
4.84 4.34 3.75 3.17 2.58 2.04 1.53 1.07 0.66 0.32
5.02 4.54 3.97 3.39 2.79 2.23 1.69 1.20 0.75 0.34
5.42 4.90 4.28 3.65 2.99 2.40 1.81 1.28 0.79 0.36
SD = Shear Deformation
17-13
REFERENCES
[1]
Teal, E., "Practical Design of Eccentrically Braced Frames to Resist Seismic Forces," Structural Steel Education Council, San Francisco/El Monte, CA,
1979.
[2]
Popov, E.P., M.D. Engelhardt, and J.M. Ricles, Eccentrically Brace Frames: U.S. Practice, 3rd U.S. - Japan Workshop on the Improvement of Building Structural Design and Construction Practices, Tokyo, Japan, July 29-30, 1988, Applied Technology Council.
Roeder, C.W. and E.P. Popov, Inelastic Behavior of Eccentrically Braced Steel Frames Under Cyclic Loadings, Report No. UCB/EERC-77/18, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1977.
[3]
[4]
Roeder, C.W. and E.P. Popov, "Eccentrically Braced Frames for Earthquakes," Journal of the Structural Division, vol. 104, no. 3, ASCE, March 1978.
Hjelmstad, K.D. and E.P. Popov, Seismic Behavior of Active Beam Links in Eccentrically Braces Frames, Report No. UCB/EERC-83/24, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1983.
Hjelmstad, K.D. and E.P. Popov, "Cyclic Behavior and Design of Link Beams," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, vol. 109, no. 10, ASCE, October 1983.
Malley, J.O. and E.P. Popov, "Shear Links in Eccentrically Braced Frames," Journal of the Structural Division, vol. 110, no. 9, ASCE, September 1984. Kasai, K. and E.P. Popov, "General Behavior of WF Steel Shear Link
Beams," Journal of the Structural Division, vol. 112, no. 2, ASCE, February 1986.
[5]
[6]
[7] [8]
[9]
Kasai, K. and E.P. Popov, A Study of Seismically Resistant Eccentrically Braced Frames, Report No. UCB/EERC-86/01, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1986.
Ricles, J.M. and E.P. Popov, Experiments on EBFs with Composite Floors
Eccentricaly Braced Frames, Report No. UCB/EERC-87/06, Earthquake
[10]
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1987.
17-14
[11]
Kasai, K. and E.P. Popov, "Cyclic Web Buckling Control for Shear Link Beams," Journal of the Structural Division, vol. 112, no.3, ASCE, March 1986.
Krawinkler, H., V.V. Bertero, and E.P. Popov, Inelastic Behavior of Steel Beam-to-Column Subassemblages, Report No. UCB/EERC-71/7, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1971. Engelhardt, M.D., E.P. Popov, Behavior of Long Links in Eccentrically Braced Frames, Report No. UCB/EERC-89/01, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1989. Ricles, J.M. and E.P. Popov, Dynamic Analysis of Seismically Resistant Eccentrically Braced Frames, Report No. UCB/EERC-87/07, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1987.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
AISC, Tentative Seismic Provisions, American Institute of Steel Construction. (To be published 1989)
Spurr, H.V., Wind Bracing, McGraw Hill, New York, 1930.
17-15
FIGURE 1
17-16
FIGURE 2
17-17
FIGURE 3
17-18
17-19
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 5
17-20
FIGURE 6
17-21
FIGURE 7
17-22
FIGURE 8
17-23
FIGURE 9
17-24
FIGURE 10
17-25

Eccentric Braced Steel Frames For Wind and Low-to-Moderate Seismic Loads

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Eccentric Braced Steel Frames For Wind and Low-to-Moderate Seismic Loads

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Eccentric Braced Steel Frames for Wind and Low-to-Moderate Seismic Loads

STANLEY D. LINDSEY AND ARVIND V. GOVERDHAN

Proposed Design Approach

Suggested Design Guidelines

Diagonal Brace and Beam Outside of Link:

The nominal strength of each diagonal brace shall be adequate to

TABLE 1.- LATERAL DEFLECTIONS FOR A 10 STORY D-BRACE FRAME

Load Case: +1.0W +

Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1987.

Potrebbero piacerti anche