0 Voti positivi0 Voti negativi

5 visualizzazioni107 pagineBraced Ductile Shear Panel Thesis

Mar 26, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

Braced Ductile Shear Panel Thesis

© All Rights Reserved

5 visualizzazioni

Braced Ductile Shear Panel Thesis

© All Rights Reserved

- Neuromancer
- The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and
- How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking
- Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
- Chaos: Making a New Science
- The Joy of x: A Guided Tour of Math, from One to Infinity
- How to Read a Person Like a Book
- Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything
- The Wright Brothers
- The Other Einstein: A Novel
- The 6th Extinction
- The Housekeeper and the Professor: A Novel
- The Power of Discipline: 7 Ways it Can Change Your Life
- The 10X Rule: The Only Difference Between Success and Failure
- A Short History of Nearly Everything
- The Kiss Quotient: A Novel
- The End of Average: How We Succeed in a World That Values Sameness
- Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die
- Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions
- The Universe in a Nutshell

Sei sulla pagina 1di 107

Corso di Laurea Specialistica in Ingegneria Civile - Orientamento Strutture

a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system

Relatore:

Prof. Ing. Marco Valente

Giannuzzi Davide - matr. 725047

Index

Notation iv

Abstract (Italiano) vi

Abstract viii

1. Introduction 1

i

Index

2.3.2 Results....................................................................................................................................... 20

2.4 Observations.......................................................................................................................33

ii

Index

5. Conclusions 93

Acknowledgements 95

References 96

iii

Notation

Frame geometry

: clear height of the braced portal

: clear width o f the braced portal

BDSP geometry

: ductile panel height

: ductile panel width

: thickness of the flanges surrounding the ductile panel

: ductile panel thickness

Braces

: cross-sectional area

: cross-sectional warping constant

: web depth

: second moment of area around the strong axis

: second moment of area around the weak axis

: cross-sectional torsion stiffness

: brace length

: flange thickness

: web thickness Braces cross-section

: flange width

Material properties

: Youngs modulus of steel

: tangent Youngs modulus

: monotonic yield stress (true stress)

: monotonic stress at failure (true stress)

: shear modulus

: secant shear modulus

: monotonic strain at first yield

: monotonic failure strain

: axial force in the braces

: lateral load

: critical lateral load

iv

Index

: load to cause shear buckling in the panel

: engineering shear strain in the panel

: inter-story drift

: inter-story drift index

: at yield

: at failure

v

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system Abstract (Italiano)

Abstract (Italiano)

La tesi incentrata su un nuovo sistema di controventi in acciaio per edifici in zona sismica,

composto da un pannello duttile che lavora a taglio e controventi concentrici a X. Questo sistema pu

essere utilizzato per soddisfare la richiesta di rigidezza e duttilit in nuove costruzioni, oppure come

sistema di adeguamento di strutture esistenti.

rettangolare. Sotto lazione delle forze sismiche si vuole che i controventi restino in campo elastico,

mentre il pannello superando il limite di snervamento dissipi energia plasticamente. Per questa

ragione lelemento centrale anche pensato per essere un elemento sacrificale, sostituibile in caso ce

ne fosse bisogno a seguito di un evento sismico. Dal momento che il pannello si prevede lavori in

uno stato di quasi puro taglio, un progetto attento dello stesso dovrebbe garantire un comportamento

isteretico stabile.

La prima parte del lavoro affronta il problema del progetto e dimensionamento del sistema a livello

locale. Analisi non lineari tridimensionali agli elementi finiti sono state utilizzate per capire quali

sono i fattori che governano il comportamento del solo sistema di controventatura. Svolte utilizzando

spostamenti imposti come carichi quasi-statici, queste analisi hanno evidenziato i parametri chiave

del sistema. Diversi aspetti sono stati studiati, come la rigidezza prima e dopo lo snervamento, il

problema dellinstabilit nel piano, fuori piano e locale, il comportamento sotto cicli di carico. I

risultati hanno permesso di definire i requisiti e i limiti per il dimensionamento del dispositivo in

termini di sezioni dei controventi, dimensioni e forma. Le analisi hanno anche mostrato che il sistema

in grado di dissipare significative quantit di energia a costo solo di una piccola progressiva perdita

di rigidezza.

La seconda parte della tesi, partendo dai risultati ottenuti dalle analisi locali, volta ad introdurre il

comportamento isteretico del dispositivo in un edificio a telaio in acciaio. Gli effetti del nuovo

dispositivo in differenti strutture sono stati studiati utilizzando analisi dinamiche non lineari con

accelerogramma. Il progetto ottimale e lefficacia dei nuovi controventi sono valutate osservando

diversi parametri: il controllo degli spostamenti laterali, la dissipazione di energia e la capacit di

limitare e/o evitare plasticizzazioni al di fuori del sistema di controventi. Le analisi hanno dato prova

vi

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system Abstract (Italiano)

che il dispositivo in grado di proteggere e migliorare le prestazioni di edifici esistenti, siano essi

stati originariamente progettati in zona sismica o meno.

Come raccordo ulteriore tra le due parti del lavoro, ovvero quella di analisi locale del problema e

quella globale, gli spostamenti ottenuti dalle analisi dinamiche sono reinseriti nel modello locale per

confrontare la risposta dei due modelli.

vii

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system Abstract

Abstract

This thesis concerns a new seismic load resisting steel framing system, which is composed by ductile

shear panels and concentric X-braces. This system could be used to provide the needed stiffness and

ductility into new constructions, as well as an upgrade for existing ones. The bracing system consists

of a concentric X-type elastic bracing system, connected in series with a rectangular shear panel.

Under the seismic load the braces are expected to remain in the elastic region, while the panel yields

therefore dissipating energy. Hence the panel can be thought to be sacrificial and replaced after the

seismic event. Since the panel will work in shear, an optimal design is sought which could ensure a

stable hysteretic behavior.

The first part of the study dealt with the local aspects of the system. Nonlinear three-dimensional

finite element analyses have been carried out in order to understand which factors govern the local

behavior of the single bracing system. Performed as displacement controlled tests under quasi-static

loads, these analyses highlighted the key elements of the system. Several aspects have been taken

into consideration such as post-elastic stiffness, in- and out-of-plane buckling, cyclic behavior. These

results clearly outlined the requirements and limitations of the device in terms of cross-sections,

dimensions, aspect ratios and available ductility. The analyses also showed that the system would be

able to dissipate a good amount of energy with a very small degradation in stiffness when following

the fore mentioned guidelines. Still these guidelines resulted flexible enough to assure the possibility

to scale the system for several applications.

The second part of the study takes on from the results of the local analyses and incorporates the

obtained hysteretic behavior of the bracing system into a multi-story steel frame. The effect of the

new device on different structures are evaluated using nonlinear dynamic analyses, where ground

acceleration is used to load the structure. The optimal design and overall efficiency of the proposed

system will be estimated taking into consideration several parameters: drift control, energy

dissipation, and capability of avoiding plasticization outside the bracing system. When a good design

is thought to have been achieved, the resulting inter-story drift history is used to load the previously

defined local model so that the validity of the local-to-global translation can be double-checked.

viii

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system Abstract

The studied bracing system is proven to be efficient in protecting other frame elements and

preventing them from experiencing structural damages. The shear panel also provides superior drift

control at cost of an increase in base shear.

ix

1. Introduction

The problem of resisting seismic loading in a structure is the main objective of earthquake

engineering. Among the different type of structures that can be encountered, framed buildings are

with no doubts the most common ones, therefore most of the studies focus on this particular subject

and many breakthroughs have been made.

The main and most severe effect induced by ground-acceleration on common frames structures is

horizontal shear loading, and in order to resist this type of forces bracing systems are usually

employed. In steel frame buildings several options are available to give to the structure the capability

to resist lateral forces. Very often the choice of one system over another reduces to a trade-off

between stiffness/strength and ductility. Stiffness and strength are strictly related in these systems,

they are required to provide better drift control, and therefore limit architectural damage, but on the

other hand large stiffness values tend to attract and increase the seismic loading. Moreover these

features are also achieved at considerable economic cost. Ductility limits the strength demand in the

structure by providing good energy dissipation: a reduced demand in strength will then result in

lower economic cost of the structural elements, at cost of a more complicated and thorough design.

The ideal structural system is therefore the one that can combine good scalable stiffness, high

ductility and low costs.

This work focuses on an innovative bracing system, originally conceived by Prof. Arthur A.

Hucklebridge of CRWU (Cleveland, OH), which could offer an attractive combination of high

stiffness and ductility, along with a controlled behavior under cyclic loading.

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 1. Introduction

At the present day several types of bracing systems have been studied and developed which are able

to dissipate energy through yielding of steel elements. Concentrically Braced Frames (CBF, Fig. 1.1a)

can provide high stiffness bracing, but they cant achieve high levels of ductility. Their performance

is significantly affected by the behavior of the compression braces, which buckle and then could

experience formation of plastic hinges: this eventually leads to fracture after a small number of

inelastic load reversals. Eccentrically Braced Frames (EBF, Fig. 1.1b) equipped with ductile shear

links, can be detailed to offer a good combination of strength and ductility. Although the ductile links

experience a combination of shear and flexural effects, which complicates their design.

Another significant category of seismic load resisting steel systems is the Steel Panel Shear Wall

(SPSW, Fig. 1.1c) system. SPSWs are a relatively new system whose popularity and attention is

growing due to their structural efficiency, economy and ease of construction. While this system holds

much promise, the behavior of SPSWs is complicated by the complex mode of buckling of the shear

wall, tension field in the shear wall, large forces developed in the beams and columns surrounding

the steel wall, and interaction between the steel wall and surrounding members.

Link

Shear

Steel panel

shear wall

(a) concentrically braced frame (CBF); (b) eccentrically braced frame (EBF); (c) steel panel shear wall

(SPSW) system; (d) shear panel system.

Among currently available systems and systems studied in the past, the shear panel system (shown in

Fig. 1.1d) most closely resembles the BDSP system. The proposed BDSP system may be viewed as

an improvement to the Japanese shear panel systems. Unlike the Japanese shear panel systems which

develops moment at the top and bottom ends, the shear panel is subjected to pure shear. Therefore,

the behavior of the shear panel is expected to be more stable and reliable, while the braces need not

be designed for significant moment, and consequently, capacity design can be more easily and

reliably implemented. In addition, the connection between the shear panel and diagonal brace is

2

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 1. Introduction

simplified in the BDSP system. The BDSP system holds many promises to improve the seismic

behavior and safety of steel building structures.

Another interesting bracing system are Buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBF) which can be

recognized as CBFs with improved performance. BRBFs were originally developed in Japan, after

several decades of research, and have become a popular structural system worldwide since the late

1990s. In a BRBF, the diagonal braces are encased in a component that restrains buckling of the

brace core, but does not develop additional force resistance due to friction between the brace core

and encasing component. BRBFs overcome much of the shortcomings of CBFs, albeit with

substantial cost premium.

The proposed bracing system is composed by four concentric X-braces, placed in series with a

yielding rectangular ductile shear panel as shown in Fig. 1.2. Since this system is considered a hybrid

of a buckling-restrained braced frame and a steel shear panel system, it is named hereafter, the

Braced Ductile Shear Panel (BDSP) system. The four short I-shaped braces transfer the lateral

displacements arising from the lateral load on the building to the shear panel. The ductile shear panel

will be comprised of non-slender, in-plane plate elements, stiffened around the perimeter by a

boundary flange, and capable of achieving high levels of ductility, when strained inelastically in a

1 ).

shearing mode (Fig. 1.2-

3

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 1. Introduction

The series configuration ensures that the strength of the ductile shear panel will define the limiting

seismic strength demand on the bracing system. The b/t ratios of the shear panel will be limited such

that a stable hysteretic behavior can be ensured for a substantial number of load cycles, even at high

levels of ductility demand. It is well known from extensive experimental investigations of

eccentrically braced frames, particularly those with shorter length shear links, that cyclic shear

yielding can be a stable and dependable mechanism for dissipating seismic energy in a structural

system.

The system is thought to be used either in new buildings and as a retrofit measure. The device is also

designed so that it can be considered sacrificial, meaning that it could be replaced after a severe

loading. This implies that the braces and all other elements composing the bracing system beside the

BDSP have to be designed so that they will not experience plastic strains, therefore energy

dissipation will be concentrated in the panel.

The need to be able to replace a damaged panel also implies a bolted connection between the braces

3 ). This connection is realized with doubler plates on both flanges and webs.

and the panel (Fig. 1.2-

The design and study of the new bracing system is conceptually divided into two phases. In the first

phase the device had to be designed from scratch, therefore it was necessary to define the optimal set

of dimensions, geometry and other parameters that would make the behavior of the BDSP system as

close as possible to the one of the initial concept. The second phase concerned the evaluation of the

favorable effects that a well designed BDSP bracing would have on a framed structures during a

seismic event.

Analytical Force-displacement

relationship

models

performance analyses analyses

Displacements

time-history

The first study has been conducted either with analytical models and finite elements analyses,

eventually merged together. Finite elements analyses have been carried out with commercial

4

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 1. Introduction

software ABAQUS/Standard, with geometric and material nonlinearities. This analyses have been

used to validate and calibrate the analytical models, which then gave the possibility to predict the

general force-displacement behavior of a generic bracing system.

The second part of the work focused on finite elements analyses of framed structure with SAP2000

v14 software. Several analyses allowed to evaluate the effects of the BDSP either as used in new

constructions and as retrofit measure on moment resisting frames. The force-displacement

relationship obtained from the previous phase has been used to define the properties of nonlinear

links used to model the bracing system in the frame oriented analyses in SAP2000.

As closure, a back analysis has been done applying the deformation-history of nonlinear links from

SAP analyses back to ABAQUS model.

5

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

The originality of the BDSP system requires a deep study of its behavior, since few previous

researches can be used to derive significant information. Still both stiffened and unstiffened shear

panels, of various sizes and thicknesses have been largely studied for cyclic dissipative behavior. The

conclusions of these studies are that well designed shear panels are able to develop stable hysteretic

cycles [1]. The core panel of the BDSP naturally fits into this category, therefore in the preliminary

study the stable behavior of the shear panel has been taken for granted.

Next step was to study the global kinematics and equilibrium of the BDSP panel and connecting

braces. The analytical expressions derived from this analysis are then used to define the range of

allowable design forces and drifts, and so design the first models in ABAQUS.

Using the results from the first parametric analyses, models were modified and enhanced to achieve

the sought behavior (cyclic loading stability, limit post-buckling effects, ductility, etc.). When a

stable behavior was reached, an extensive parametric study on different geometries was carried out.

The data collected were then used to compare the finite elements model results with the behavior

predicted by the simplified analytical models.

Putting together the two studies allowed to write design formulas, which were proven to give a good

estimation of fundamental characteristics of the system (elastic stiffness, strength, hysteresis cycles)

with a reasonable approximation.

6

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

In order to be able to define the requirements in terms of dimensions, slenderness ratios and strength

in the elements composing the bracing system, it is necessary to understand the behavior of the

system prior and after the yielding of the panel, when large displacements take place.

As a first step a simplified model is created to work out some basic static and kinematics

relationships (Fig. 2.1). In this model the axial deformation in the connecting braces and in the

surrounding beams and columns has been neglected, that is to say the axial stiffness .

The connections between braces-BDSP and braces-frame are modeled as hinges, therefore the

moment perpendicular to the frame plane is neglected. The reasons behind this hypothesis are the

same that are used in trusses modeling, the elements are expected to be connected so that the

eccentricity between their axis is minimized, therefore the moments that arise can be neglected.

These assumptions along with the small displacements and linear elastic hypotheses, allow to work

out the following kinematic relationship:

1

(2.1)

2

By solving the equilibrium at the frame nodes, the axial force in the braces can be calculated as:

1 (2.2)

2 cos

7

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

2 cos (2.3)

Combining equations (2.1) to (2.3) and remembering that since is the engineering shear strain in

the panel , the lateral load can be expressed as a function of the inter-story drift index:

(2.4)

2

The fraction /2 in (2.4) can be defined as the elastic lateral stiffness of the bracing system. In

fact it defines the lateral load V that needs to be applied in order to cause a drift index equals to .

Substituting / in (2.4) the stiffness of the system against lateral drift is:

(2.5)

2

The comparison of (2.1) and (2.4) shows that this model predicts an uncoupling between the in-

plane size of the BDSP (i.e. dimensions b, a) and the stiffness of the whole system (as long as the

elements stay elastic), which depends only upon the thickness of the ductile panel. This first finding,

although deriving from a quite simplified model, was really interesting. In fact, it makes possible

during the design phase to independently choose the stiffness (which controls the ability of the

bracing system to limit the drift) and the yield load (strictly related to the system ductility).

The linear elastic model has been extended to include the post-yielding plastic behavior of the ductile

panel. The main outcome for which this model is created is to calculate the displacements for a given,

large inter-story drift. The reason why the model needs to be modified is that after the panel yields,

its stiffness decreases, due to shape of the common stress-strain relationship of the structural steel.

This results in a concentration of displacements in the panel.

8

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

First the assumption on the axial stiffness of the braces is taken off, and their actual axial stiffness is

considered. The connecting nodes between the braces and the rectangular panel are still modeled as

hinges, but two different kind of braces-to-frame connections are studied.

The ductile panel is modeled as a rectangular element with sole shear stiffness, surrounded by four

axially rigid rods. Since the rods are connected at their ends with hinges, they dont contribute to the

shear stiffness of the panel. The effects of the plasticity in the panel are modeled by substituting the

elastic shear modulus with its corresponding secant value , which is known once the material

properties and the working shear strain are assigned.

The model is solved for an assigned horizontal displacement of the two upper nodes, which

represents the inter-story drift of the braced frame.

If the connection between the braces and the frame constraints relative rotations, therefore able to

generate a bending moment around the axis.

The model can be defined using 6 degrees of freedom, as shown in Fig. 2.4. Using the displacement

method the structure has been solved for an imposed displacement equal to at the degrees of

freedom and . The stiffness matrix of the structure is:

Fig. 2.4 - Model for moment connected Fig. 2.5 - Deformed shape of the moment connected

structure structure

c1 c1 c2 0 0 0

2c1 c3 c2 c1 c3 c2

2c 5 c 4 0 c2 c4

c1 0 c2

sym. 2c1 c 3 c2

2c5 c 4

9

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

Where:

3 3

sin cos cos sin

3

sin cos

The solution of the linear system for the prescribed boundary conditions gives:

2 2

2 2

The shear strain in the plate at the maximum drift can then be calculated as:

(2.6)

The analytical model for the case of pinned connection is similar to the one for moment connections.

The stiffness matrix for this case can be obtained by substituting 0 in the expressions of the

coefficients, and the solutions for the displacements stay the same. The new coefficients are:

cos sin

sin cos

Fig. 2.6 - Model for pin connected structure

structure

The shear strain can still be calculated using (2.6).

10

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

The two models that have been illustrated require the knowledge of the shear stress-strain

relationship ( , ) of the yielding plate in order to calculate the secant shear modulus . However

the elastic-plastic behavior steel is typically characterized by a uniaxial stress-strain curve, defined by

the elastic modulus , the yielding stress and the tangent stiffness . The elastic shear modulus

for an isotropic material is /2 1 , although to model the shear behavior outside the

elastic region a yielding criterion has to be introduced. In this case the Von Mises criterion is used,

which is assumed to be suitable to describe structural steel properties. In case of pure shear the

yielding shear stress for the chosen criterion is:

Under the hypothesis of a J2-hardening plasticity, with the hardening modulus being equal to , and

a stress state of pure shear the tangent shear modulus can be derived as:

3

1 (2.7)

3

Once the tangent shear modulus is known the shear stress-shear strain curve can be plotted and the

secant shear modulus can be calculated for a given shear strain as:

(2.8)

with (2.9)

11

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

The critical load is the minimum value between these two buckling loads.

The in-plane buckling of the braces around their strong axis takes place for a load greater than the

one which causes out-of-plane global buckling: this is due to the higher flexural stiffness of I-beams

around their strong axes and to the shorter effective length with the given boundary conditions

(stabilizing effect of tension members).

Two analytical models are proposed to estimate the loads relative to the above mentioned buckling

modes. Their validity is compared with the results from the parametric finite elements analyses.

The complexity of the bracing system geometry did not make possible a complete analytical

evaluation of the buckling load in the braces. A beams model have been used to define a general

expression for the buckling load, which coefficients will be calibrated using data from finite elements

analyses.

The shape of this buckling mode consists of an out-of-plane buckling of the braces in compression,

which deflect in opposite Z-directions; this results in an almost rigid rotation of the BDSP around the

axis of the tension members, which therefore are subjected to an elastic twisting at their inner ends.

In the analytical model each compression brace is compared to a beam of equal length with an axial

load equal to half the buckling load (due to the symmetry between compression and tension braces

before the buckling takes place). In the section 0 the beam is fully restrained against all rotations

and sectional warping. In the end is attached to a translational elastic spring (stiffness ) and a

rotational spring ( ) (Fig. 2.9).

The restraint provided by the springs accounts for the restraints offered in the real system by the

torsional stiffness of the tension members and the BDSP web.

The proposed scheme allows to calculate the value of from the torsional stiffness of the tension

braces (which are also thought as fully restrained at one end and free at the other), and the distance

12

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

between the twisting axis and the free end of the compression braces (Fig. 2.10). If a pair of force

with intensity is applied in opposite -directions at the ends of two braces, using the hypothesis of

a rigid rotation around the axis of the other two braces, the displacement associated with these forces

is equal to

where represents the twisting angle in the tension braces. The sought stiffness k is then:

The twisting moment in each brace is:

For a cantilever beam with full torsional restraint at one end and a concentrated moment in the

free end the total angle of rotation is:

Where takes into account for the effect of non-uniform torsion and its equal to:

1

1 with

1

1

24

(2.10)

13

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

The critical axial load is then expressed proportionally to the load of a beam of equal length with

fixed-free ends and adimensional coefficients. Therefore one has:

(2.11)

where:

; ; (2.12)

4

The exponents for these coefficients (whose purpose is to represent the actual degree of interaction

between the elements) have been fitted to the results from the FEAs.

2 cos (2.13)

14

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

The web is assumed to be in a state of pure uniform shear. The flanges, as well as the braces, provide

partial flexural restraints at the edges of the plate. The critical load is then expected to be within the

shear buckling load solutions for simply supported and fully restrained plate.

From [2] the shear to cause elastic buckling in rectangular plates of thickness equal to is:

(2.14)

12 1

Where takes into account the effects of the size ratio / 1 and the different boundary

conditions:

4.0

simply supported plate 5.34 (2.15)

5.6

fully restrained plate 8.98 (2.16)

In (2.14) the web height has to be replaced by the corresponding fraction when transverse stiffeners

are installed on the plate. The same applies to the web width used for the calculation of the ratio

factor .

The actual shear buckling load for the BDSP web is expected to be in between the two load obtained

for these boundary conditions.

15

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

The type of finite elements analyses run are linear buckling and nonlinear quasi-static analyses.

The software version used is ABAQUS/Standard v6.8-1.

2.3.1.1 Geometry

The considered elements in these analyses are modeled in a three-dimensional space using two-

dimensional shells objects. This choice is thought to be suitable for the purpose of the current study

since shell elements are able to precisely describe transverse bending moments and in-plane forces,

which are the most interesting stresses in this type of model. The possible adoption of 3D-solid

elements would have dramatically increased the number of DOFs in the model, making it more

complex with no significant advantages in terms of results accuracy.

Each I-section brace is modeled with shells along the median plane of web and flanges. The end of

the brace which is not connected to the BDSP is perpendicularly cut in the generic models. In other

more detailed models the analyses are focused on the local behavior of braces-to-frame connections;

in this case the geometry of the brace extremity has been refined to better represent the real problem.

The shear panel is composed by a planar X-shaped shell surrounded by four flanges, one horizontal

and one vertical stiffener. The BDSP and the braces are continuously linked along the edges of their

ends.

16

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

2.3.1.2 Materials

One of the goals of this design is to make the device so that plastic deformations are restricted to the

shear plate. To this purpose is assumed in the design that all the elements composing the sacrificial

panel will be made out of a steel grade possessing a relatively low yield strength, while the braces

and the connecting elements are going to be manufactured with a higher yield stress steel grade.

Accordingly two different material models are introduced in ABAQUS/Standard.

Since the connecting elements are not expected to experience plastic deformations (in that case the

model would have to be redesigned to meet the fore mentioned goal) their material model is quite

simple and consist of an elastic-plastic relationship with near-to-zero hardening. The steel grade used

is an ASTM-A992 steel grade, which yield stress is equal to 50 345 . The other

parameters are 200 and 0.30.

The BDSP instead is made out of ASTM A36 steel grade, yield stress 35 240 ,

which is a more ductile steel grade and its lower yield stress makes it easier to preserve the other

elements in the bracing system. During quasi-static analyses the plate is expected to undergo large

cyclic plastic strains, this requires a more refined material model able to predict the cyclic behavior

of the panel. The stress-strain relationship used in ABAQUS/Standard is an elastic-plastic law with

nonlinear kinematic hardening stored in 3 exponential backstresses (the yielding surface is shifted

when yielding occurs but its size remains the same). Still referring to the anticipated cyclic loading

on the plate, more consideration is given to the cyclic response of the material than to the monotonic

one. This results in a stress-strain curve that differs from the one that is usually adopted for the

structural steel. In fact, as shown in [3], the cyclic response of A36 steel can be better represented by

the envelope of stabilized curves for different strain ranges. Another useful result in [3] is that pure

kinematic hardening (no isotropic hardening) can sole well represent the evolution of the yielding

surface for this specific steel grade. The resulting curve has a lower yield stress than the nominal one

(about 30 207 ) , a smooth transition between the elastic region and the onset of the

hardening.

17

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

All the values used to define the curves for the materials are intended as true stress-true strain. This

means that the common stress-strain curve that is obtained from uniaxial tests on steel bars is

corrected in order to cancel the effect of necking.

500.0

400.0

(MPa)

true stress (MPa)

0.0 0.0

300.0

245.0 1.21E-03

200.0 317.2 1.10E-02

337.8 2.00E-02

100.0

358.7 2.90E-02

0.0

393.0 1.62E-01

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 Table 2.1 - Stress-strain data

true strain

Fig. 2.14 - Stress-strain input in ABAQUS for ASTM A36

steel

Loads and boundary conditions are applied on the model indirectly using node constraints and

reference points. More precisely the nodes composing each boundary regions are tied together with

a rigid constraint, which means that no relative displacements are allowed between the nodes. To

each set of constrained nodes a reference point (RP) is associated. Loads and boundary conditions are

then defined on the RPs.

This method has several advantages, among them the most important one is that more realistic loads

and boundary conditions can be easily applied without introducing stress concentration in the

boundary nodes. In fact this way a hinge boundary condition can be introduced at the end of the 3D-

shell beam without creating a stress concentration in the centroid node since the stresses are

distributed along the constrained edges. Moreover the constrains better represented the boundary

condition when gusset plates or welded braces where introduced in the model. In Fig. 2.15 the

different constraints sets defined for the different types of analyzed models are shown along with

their reference points:

a) free end braces = nodes composing each end section;

b) welded braces model = nodes lying on the shaped corner section;

All the boundary regions in every analysis and every model are restrained against Y and Z

displacements, X and Y-rotations. Z-rotations are restrained in the models with in-plane moment-

18

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

resisting connections, while they are let free in models with pinned connections. Lower RPs are

always restrained against horizontal (X) displacements.

Loads are then applied at the horizontal degree-of-freedom of the upper RPs, depending on the

analysis type. In buckling analyses the result from ABAQUS is the multiplier of the reference load,

hence two concentrated loads equal to 0.5 [model force unit] are applied horizontally in the RPs.

Their sum is then unitary, and the reference load is the actual horizontal force V for each buckling

mode. Quasi-static analysis are carried out as displacement control, so in this case the displacement

of the two upper RPs is imposed and it is defined by the inter-story drift time-history used.

RP

RP

(a) (b)

The behavior of the system after the BDSP yields is studied with several finite elements analyses on

the model already defined.

12 fully reversed drift cycles of constant amplitude;

Displacements time-history applied at the top nodes;

Amplitude of the cycles depending on the geometry equal to 20 ;

Seeded imperfections using the first significant buckling mode shape.

1.0

/max

0.0

-1.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

time, cycles

19

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

Parametric studies, instead, have been carried out on the following variables:

BDSP in-plane size ( , );

Braced bay width ( ) and story height ( );

Braces sections;

Imperfections amplitude (max. amplitude = 0.25; 0.75; 2.5 );

Boundary conditions (braces-to-frame connection: pinned; continuous moment).

The model is meshed using mainly 4-nodes elements with reduced integration and hourglass control

(ABAQUS name S4R), plus some 3-nodes elements (S3). The characteristic length used for mesh

generation is about 50 . The average model is composed by about 5000 nodes and 5000 elements.

An example of a meshed model is shown in Fig. 2.17.

2.3.2 Results

The data obtained from FE analyses are used to prove and calibrate the analytical models developed

at the beginning. All the proposed models are proven to be reasonable and being able to depict the

overall response of the system. Although some of the expressions worked out give a rough estimation

of the sought values, they are still useful for having a strong yet basic understanding of the system

behavior, which is fundamental for a proper use of finite elements results. The creation of more

complex and precise prediction models is postponed to a later phase, when the finite element model

will be calibrated using future experimental data.

20

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

The type of the most critical buckling shape, associated with the minimum load to cause elastic

buckling, depends on the geometry of the bracing system. As already discussed in 2.2.3 the two

most critical modes related to practical use geometries are the shear buckling of the panel and the

buckling of the compression braces. The critical load can be expressed as the minimum of these two

loads:

min , (2.17)

In order to calibrate the coefficients in equation (2.11) a large parametric study is carried out on

different geometries of the bracing system. The coefficients are manually fit so that the predicted

critical load is not greater than the one obtained from FEAs model where the braces buckling is the

governing behavior.

The data obtained from the parametric investigation are compared to the analytical models developed

to check the ability of these to predict the governing buckling mode and the corresponding critical

load.

The results of this comparison are listed in Table 2.2, where the type of the first buckling mode is

indicated with a letter: B indicates braces-dominated out-of-plane buckling, while W stands for shear

buckling of the BDSP web.

21

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

Fig. 2.19 - Web shear dominated buckling: contour plot of out-of-plane displacements

Its seen that equations (2.11), (2.15) and (2.16) together with the criterion (2.17) are able to predict

with a good approximation the critical load of the system and the critical buckling shape.

22

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

(Buckling mode: W = Shear buckling of BDSP web; B = out-of-plane buckling of braces)

ABAQUS Formulas

Braces 1st buckl. Load 1st buckl. Load

section [m] [mm] [mm] mode [kN] mode [kN]

HE360A 4x3 900x675 3 W 450.6 W 292.7

HE360A 4x3 900x675 4 W 1016.4 W 693.8

HE360A 4x3 900x675 6 W 3055.5 W 2341.5

HE360A 4x3 900x675 8 B 6103.8 W 5550.3

HE360A 4x3 900x675 10 B 8697.6 B 9024.6

HE360A 4x3 1100x825 3 W 315.8 W 239.5

HE360A 4x3 1100x825 4 W 719.3 W 567.6

HE360A 4x3 1100x825 6 W 2229.4 W 1915.8

HE360A 4x3 1100x825 8 W 4764.5 W 4541.1

HE360A 4x3 1100x825 10 B 7805.7 B 6871.2

HE360A 4x3 1100x825 20 B 16462.0 B 15785.9

HE360A 4x3 1100x825 30 B 26505.6 B 25679.1

HE360A 4x3 1300x975 3 W 244.7 W 202.6

HE360A 4x3 1300x975 4 W 560.5 W 480.3

HE360A 4x3 1300x975 6 W 1761.1 W 1621.1

HE360A 4x3 1300x975 8 W 3862.8 W 3842.5

HE360A 4x3 1300x975 10 B 6800.9 B 5650.8

HE360A 4x3 1300x975 20 B 16743.6 B 12982.1

HE360A 4x3 1300x975 30 B 25827.3 B 21118.1

HE360A 5x3 900x540 3 W 720.2 W 408.5

HE360A 5x3 900x540 4 W 1583.6 W 968.3

HE360A 5x3 900x540 6 W 4454.4 W 3268.2

HE360A 5x3 900x540 8 B 7043.3 B 6739.0

HE360A 5x3 900x540 10 B 8814.6 B 8808.2

HE360A 5x3 900x540 20 B 19695.8 B 20236.0

HE360A 5x3 900x540 30 B 34108.1 B 32918.1

HE360A 5x3 1100x660 3 W 470.6 W 334.2

HE360A 5x3 1100x660 4 W 1059.1 W 792.3

HE360A 5x3 1100x660 6 W 3088.4 W 2674.0

HE360A 5x3 1100x660 8 B 5668.4 B 4959.5

HE360A 5x3 1100x660 10 B 7725.2 B 6482.3

HE360A 5x3 1100x660 20 B 16512.7 B 14892.4

HE360A 5x3 1100x660 30 B 28327.6 B 24225.6

HE360A 5x3 1300x780 3 W 359.7 W 282.8

HE360A 5x3 1300x780 4 W 814.0 W 670.4

HE360A 5x3 1300x780 6 W 2492.8 W 2262.6

HE360A 5x3 1300x780 8 W 5151.0 B 3925.2

HE360A 5x3 1300x780 10 B 7743.9 B 5130.5

HE360A 5x3 1300x780 20 B 15846.8 B 11786.8

HE360A 5x3 1300x780 30 B 26153.8 B 19173.6

HE360A 6x3 1100x550 3 W 684.6 W 450.1

HE360A 6x3 1100x550 4 W 1516.5 W 1066.9

HE360A 6x3 1100x550 6 W 4436.7 B 3417.3

HE360A 6x3 1100x550 8 B 6949.9 B 4826.3

23

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

HE360A 6x3 1100x550 20 B 19701.2 B 14492.5

HE360A 6x3 1100x550 30 B 33521.4 B 23575.1

HE360A 6x3 1300x650 3 W 500.9 W 380.8

HE360A 6x3 1300x650 4 W 1123.0 W 902.7

HE360A 6x3 1300x650 6 W 3372.2 B 2644.2

HE360A 6x3 1300x650 8 B 6405.4 B 3734.4

HE360A 6x3 1300x650 10 B 8151.8 B 4881.0

HE360A 6x3 1300x650 20 B 17443.3 B 11213.7

HE360A 6x3 1300x650 30 B 29214.1 B 18241.3

HE360A 6x3 1500x750 3 W 400.6 W 330.1

HE360A 6x3 1500x750 4 W 901.7 W 782.4

HE360A 6x3 1500x750 6 W 2738.5 B 2154.6

HE360A 6x3 1500x750 8 W 5541.1 B 3042.9

HE360A 6x3 1500x750 10 B 7699.4 B 3977.3

HE360A 6x3 1500x750 20 B 15943.3 B 9137.4

HE360A 6x3 1500x750 30 B 26284.5 B 14863.8

24

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

The equations worked out from the elastic model illustrated in 2.2.1 give an estimation of the pre-

yielding behavior of the system defining its stiffness in (2.5). Substituting the yielding shear stress

/3 calculated for the Mises criterion for the case of pure shear, the yielding point of the

bracing system can be identified by corresponding lateral load and inter-story drift .

2 2

2 G

These equations have been validated by the results from finite element analyses. In Table 2.3 a

comparison between results from FEAs and predictions given by the previous equations is shown.

The model predicts with reasonable approximation the yielding load with (2.18). The yielding inter-

story drift however is overestimated by (2.19) by about 10 to 50%. Therefore the finite element

model proves to be stiffer than expected. These approximations are assumed to be acceptable given

the hypotheses introduced and the simplicity of the resulting equations, which can still be used as a

first approximation for the design of the device.

(m)

(mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm)

5x3 1100x660 4 580.4 2.07 609.7 2.38 5.05% 14.9%

5x3 1100x660 6 924.0 2.12 914.5 2.38 -1.03% 12.2%

5x3 1100x660 8 1307.3 2.12 1219.4 2.38 -6.73% 12.2%

5x3 1100x660 10 1590.9 2.12 1524.2 2.38 -4.19% 12.2%

5x3 900x540 6 726.9 1.40 748.2 1.95 2.94% 39.0%

5x3 1300x780 6 1051.9 2.37 1080.8 2.81 2.75% 18.6%

The most important result sought in the analyses is the force-displacement plot. The force

represents the applied lateral load V and the displacement is the one imposed at the top edge.

Therefore this plot describes the response of the bracing system under cyclic lateral loading. The data

proved that the equations (2.1), (2.4) worked out from the simplified model can describe with an

excellent approximation the behavior of the system up to yielding point, therefore they allow to

calculate with a good precision the drift and the load to cause first yielding (see 2.3.2.2).

25

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

The force-displacement plots collected from all the analyses made also possible to define a simple

equation to estimate the ultimate load of the bracing system: while neglecting the contribution

coming from the flanges surrounding the BDSP web, one can assume that at the ultimate load the

whole rectangular of the panel is evenly yielded, therefore the ultimate lateral load will be:

(2.20)

With these information the force-displacement behavior of a system with given dimensions can be

approximated with a bilinear plot: the first linear segment, corresponding to the elastic region, goes

from the origin to the point identified by the drift and the lateral load to cause first yielding; the

second segment then continues to ultimate drift and load coordinates. The equations used to calculate

the points can be solved for the BDSP dimensions and allow to design the elements in order to obtain

a force-displacement behavior that fits practical needs.

A set of parametric force-displacement plots can be found in Fig. 2.20-Fig. 2.23 where the two

governing dimensions of the shear panel are changing. The base bracing geometry is a 5.00 3.00

frame equipped with a 900 wide and 6 thick panel. The effect of different thicknesses is

studied using values equal to 3,4,6,8,10 . The parameter has been taken equal to

900,1100,1300 . The two set of plots are also shown with one normalized axis, which highlights

the linear dependency from the two studied parameters.

For different thicknesses, scaling the applied lateral load by the yielding load will result in a

perfect superposition of the plots, with is calculated using the equation (2.18) . When the width of

the panel is taken as parameter, the inter-story drift is scaled by its corresponding yielding value

and again the plots completely match (the value of is obtained from (2.19)).

The data collected from the FEAs showed that the system isnt significantly affected by

imperfections amplitude. Imperfections are seeded using the deformed shape of most critical

buckling modes. The displacements of the buckled shapes are normalized so that the maximum nodal

displacement is equal to the unity. The amplitude is then defined as the factor which the

displacements of the buckled shapes are multiplied by before being applied on the initial perfect

model.

26

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

4000

3000

2000

Lateral force V (kN)

1000

-1000

-2000

-3000

-4000

-6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00

Inter-story drift (cm)

(Constant geometry: Braces=HE360A, L=5.00 m, h=3.00 m, b=900 mm, t=01.5s)

2.5

2.0

Normalized lateral force V/Vy

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0

-2.5

-6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00

Inter-story drift (cm)

Fig. 2.21 - Normalized Force-Displacement plot for different BDSP web thicknesses tw

(Constant geometry: Braces=HE360A, L=5.00 m, h=3.00 m, b= 900 mm, t=01.5s)

In Fig. 2.24 three , responses are plotted, corresponding to models with increasing initial

imperfections amplitude, ranging from 1.3mm to 5.0mm. Large imperfections only lead the system

27

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

faster to a common stable state of displacements amplitude. In fact under cyclic loading the system

tends to displace as the first buckling shape; although the amplitude of the displacements doesnt

increase constantly and tends to stabilize after some cycles. This amount of cycles depends can

depend on the size of the imperfections in the structure, however it does not affect the global

response of the system.

The force-displacement plots drawn from the analyses proved that the bracing system could achieve a

very stable hysteretic behavior. Although to obtain this stability, special attention has to be paid to

two factors. First the slenderness of the panel has to be limited so that the out-of-plane deformation -

caused by the combined effect of imperfections and load reversal - will not affect the in-plane

stiffness of the web. This degradation, in fact, would significantly produce a progressive loss of

performance in the whole bracing system. Secondly, from a global point of view, the connections and

the braces should provide enough flexural stiffness against the out-of-plane deflection to avoid a

gradual increase in displacements, which would slowly decreases the stiffness of the system.

28

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

2000

1500

1000

Lateral force V (kN)

500

-500

-1000

-1500

-2000

-6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00

Inter-story drift (cm)

(Constant geometry: Braces=HE360A, L=5.00 m, h= 3.00 m, tw=6 mm, t=01.5s)

2000

1500

1000

Lateral force V (kN)

500

-500

-1000

-1500

-2000

-25.00 -20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00

Normalized inter-story drift /y

(Constant geometry: Braces=HE360A, L=5.00 m, h= 3.00 m, tw=6 mm, t=01.5s)

29

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

2000

1500

1000

Lateral force V (kN)

500

-500

-1000

-1500

-2000

-5.00 -4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Inter-story drift (cm)

(Constant geometry: Braces=HE360A, L=5.00 m, h= 3.00 m, b=90 mm, tw=6 mm, t=01.5s)

From the analyses in ABAQUS it is possible to quantify and localize the plastic dissipation that

occurs in the shear panel. The amount of energy dissipated in each hysteresis cycle can be calculated

as the area enclosed in the force-displacement plot.

Using the bilinear relationship to represent the - plot the amount of energy dissipated in each cycle

can be calculated. For each quarter of cycle the area of the parallelogram (i.e. the energy) can be

expressed by:

where is calculated using (2.5). The area of the whole cycle will then be:

4 4 (2.21)

In Fig. 2.25 this energy is plotted against the cumulative displacement (sum of absolute value of drift

increase in each increment) and the values from the FEA is compared to the ones calculated using

expression (2.21). The estimation given by the analytical expression is quite good, considering the

approximation used in expressing the force-displacement plot with a bilinear curve. The difference

between the FEA values and the ones calculated using (2.21) is mostly constant and equal to 19%.

30

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

FEA Eq.2.21

1800

1600

Dissipated energy (kNm) 1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00

Cumulative displacement (cm)

(Model geometry: L=5.00 m, h=3.00 m, b=900 mm, tw=6 mm, max=37.4 mm)

Finite elements analyses also allow to identify the areas which the energy is being dissipated in. All

the analyses showed that plastic strains are localized completely inside the BDSP web. This can be

clearly seen in Fig. 2.26, where the evolution of the PEEQ index in the elements is plotted for 12

time steps. This index measure the total plastic strain that occurs in the elements and its defined as:

Energy dissipation takes place quite evenly on most of the BDSP web forming a cross pattern on it.

A concentration around the left and right flanges is noted: these areas appear to be the most critical

ones and therefore the first which can experience fracture. This is a fundamental concern for

experimental tests design and setup.

31

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

t = 0.25 t = 6.25

t = 1.25 t = 7.25

t = 2.25 t = 8.25

t = 3.25 t = 9.25

t = 4.25 t = 10.25

t = 5.25 t = 11.25

(Model geometry: L=5.00 m, h=3.00 m, b=900 mm, tw=6 mm, max=37.4 mm)

32

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

2.4 Observations

These analyses, performed using the software ABAQUS/Standard, are used to understand the

parameters governing the behavior of the structure, especially with reference to the stability of the

system and its hysteresis.

From the numerical investigations has been found out that BDSPs with practical use dimensions and

sections, are governed by two buckling modes: one is a global buckling shape of the compression

braces which sway out of the bracing plane; the other is a local buckling problem caused by shear

stress in the thin BDSP panel. The lowest of these two loads defines the critical buckling load of the

bracing system. Its important that this load is kept greater enough than the lateral load the device is

expected to work with, since approaching the buckling load during the load cycles would result in a

significant increase in out-of-plane displacements (either in the panel or in the braces) which after

few load reversal leads to a fast degradation of the system stiffness, therefore limiting its capability

of energy dissipation. For these reasons transverse stiffeners are strongly recommended in the BDSP

web, to reduce the slenderness of the panel, and braces I-shaped cross-section should be chosen with

particular attention to their second moment of area around the weak-axis. To this purpose the

equations worked out for predicting the buckling loads can be used.

Once the system slenderness has been limited, its behavior is very stable and the hysteresis dissipates

significant amount of energy. The stable force-displacement response is well predicted by the models

previously developed and their equations also allow for the BDSP sizing once the required strength

(in terms of yielding and ultimate load) and stiffness are defined.

More detailed and precise models can still be developed, and the local problem of the brace-to-frame

connection has to be further investigated. Although the goal of this study was to prove the actual

capabilities of the system, which is very innovative and therefore requires a complete study. This

issues are delayed to the moment that laboratory tests will have to be set up, which at the same time

will give experimental results to calibrate, modify and verify the finite elements model.

33

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

Once the bracing system has been characterized in terms of force-displacement response, its effects

on a framed steel structure are investigated. The parameters which are taken into account to evaluate

the benefits of the system are:

base shear;

energy dissipation;

structural elements protection.

The structural response in terms of these parameters depends on the characteristics of the BDSP

devices inserted (stiffness, yield force), so an optimal solution is sought varying the devices behavior.

This investigation relies on different scenarios used to guide the process of bracing design. Each

scenario gives an input of fixed parameters (geometry, elements cross-sections, design loads) and

defines the goal sought with the BDSP insertion.

For each case the original structure is analyzed by nonlinear time-history analysis with different peak

ground accelerations, and for each analysis the structural response is assessed as explained above.

The frame is then provided with BDSP bracing at each story, and the same analyses are run on the

new model. The dimensions, hence the force-displacement behavior, of the installed BDSP are

iteratively optimized to obtain an optimal structural response. The results of the two structure are

then compared and the actual effects of the bracing system are evaluated.

The two studied scenarios are an upgrade of a seismically designed building to provide additional

strength to resist more severe seismic events, and a retrofit of a non-seismic steel structure.

34

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

The nonlinear behavior of plastic hinges and BDSPs inside the frame model are included in SAP2000.

This is done by inserting nonlinear link elements1 between the relative nodes which are affected by

the hinges or the bracing system. Each element is assumed to be composed of six separate springs,

one for each of six deformational degrees-of freedom as shown in Fig. 3.1 (axial, shear, torsion, and

pure bending). Each spring may actually consist of several components, including springs and

dashpots. The force-deformation relationships of these springs may be coupled or in dependent of

each other. The Link element internal forces, P, V2, V3, and the internal moments, T,M2, M3, have

the same meaning as for the frame element. These are illustrated in Fig. 3.2.

The elastic-plastic force-deformation relationship used both for hinges and BDSP modeling is a

SAP2000 built-in property named Plastic Wen. This plasticity model is based on the hysteretic

behavior proposed by Wen (1976) which is a parametric plastic behavior with kinematic hardening.

In the link implementation all internal deformations are independent. The yielding at one degree of

freedom does not affect the behavior of the other deformations.

1

The complete formulation of the 2-nodes link elements can be found in [4].

35

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

Fig. 3.2 - Link elements internal forces and moment acting at the joints

the yield force ;

the ratio of post-yielding stiffness ;

the yielding exponent .

1 (3.1)

Where is the deformation of the considered DOF and is an internal hysteretic variable. This

variable has a range of | | 1 with the yield surface represented by | | 1. The initial value of is

zero and it evolves accordingly to the following differential equation:

1 | | if 0

otherwise

36

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

1

2

The nonlinear behavior due to the formation of plastic hinges in the frame has been introduced in the

model by nonlinear link elements. Each structural element is shortened on both ends side by the link

length: the link then connects the offset node with the geometric node of frame (see Fig. 3.4).

Links used to model plastic hinges are of the Wen type in SAP2000 (see 3.2). All the DOFs in the

link are set to be rigid except the rotation around the axis x3. The moment-rotation relationship

associated is defined following the Plastic Wen model, and parameters are hand-calculated before

the analysis:

37

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

The linear elastic stiffness which defines the slope of the elastic region (Fig. 3.3) is

calculated as:

where is the flexural stiffness of the structural element and is the geometric length of

the link element;

with being the yield stress of the selected steel grade, the distance between the

centroid of the section and the most outer fiber, the axial force and the cross-section area.

For beams element is neglected and set equal to zero. For columns is taken equal to the

maximum value obtained from a trial nonlinear analysis where the yielding moment was

initially defined using the axial force from linear analysis with static loads applied. At the

end of the analyses the axial force is compared to the one used for calculation to check

the link validity.

The length , which should correspond to the physical extension of the plastic hinge, is set

equal to the element cross-section depth.

The nonlinear response of the BDSP system has been included in SAP2000 model using a pair of

nonlinear link elements. Links are connected to the nodes of the rectangular frame that has to be

brace, like one would do with conventional concentric X-braces (Fig. 3.5). Now by including a

properly calibrated elastic-plastic behavior in the links like the one described in 3.2 the nonlinear

response of the shear panel can be simulated.

38

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

The Plastic Wen property associated with each link has to be defined by means of the above

mentioned four parameters. These can be resolved once the force-displacement response of the

bracing system in terms of , is known. In Fig. 3.6 a generic system of BDSP-equivalent links is

shown. From the simplified elastic model in 2.2.1 one had that:

If the inter-story drift is , under the hypotheses that columns and beams provide rigid connections

between the nodes and small displacements, each link is shortened by:

cos

As shown in Fig. 2.2 the equilibrium yields:

(3.2)

2 cos

and defining the axial stiffness of each link, which is exactly the Plastic Wen stiffness in (3.1),

compatibility requires:

Substituting , and and solving for one has:

1

2 cos cos 2 cos

Using the expression of from (2.5) and the fact that tan / , the sought stiffness is:

39

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

Using the result in (3.2) and substituting in place of the yield force parameter can also be

calculated:

2 cos 2 cos

The post-yield stiffness ratio is calculated from the expression of given in (2.20). The

tangent stiffness is then:

40

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

This scenario investigate the capability of providing additional strength and ductility to an existing

seismic building.

In this case the building is designed for a peak ground-acceleration 0.35 using a linear

dynamic analysis with response spectrum. This design gives the input element cross-sections of the

problem. Later nonlinear analyses allow to simulate the response of the structure to acceleration

time-histories with equal to 0.35g and 0.60g.

The frame is then equipped with BDSP devices on all stories, and its new response is studied with the

same analyses. The goal is to find a proper configuration of bracing so that the building is able to

resist a more severe seismic event than the one it was originally designed for, with no change in

element cross-sections.

3.3.1.1 Geometry

The studied building is a steel frame structure, composed by 7 identical stories. Each story has a

rectangular plan, with five 6.00m bays in X direction and six 6.00m bays in Y direction. The building

is modeled as moment resisting frame with continuous moment connections between beams and

columns.

Both beams and columns are made out of steel I sections. Beams strong axis is always parallel to the

XY plane, while columns strong axis is perpendicular to the YZ plane.

41

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

Two load patterns are considered, a dead and a live load. The characteristic values are:

Live load 2.00 /

The load combination used for the dynamic nonlinear analyses with ground acceleration time-history

is:

0.30

The resulting loads per unit length on the beams is obtained multiplying by the depth associate

with each 2D frame, which is 6.00 for the inner frames (like the one considered in the MRF

analysis) and 3.00 for the outer frames (like the BDSP equipped one). The same load combination

is used to derive the masses applied at the nodes of the structure, which differs between the two

models due to the assumed structural behavior. In the original, non-braced building all the frames are

assumed to work together to resist the seismic excitation, therefore masses applied to the studied

42

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

frame are derived by the loads acting on the same frame. When some of the frames are braced, its

assumed that their increase in stiffness allow to neglect the contribution of the remaining non-braced

frames: the mass of the whole building has then to be distributed only on the braced frames, Fig. 3.9.

Ground boundary conditions at the bottom of columns restraint displacements and rotations.

43

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

The building is first analyzed and designed as a moment resisting frame (MRF), considering a single

2D frame parallel to the XZ plane.

The sections of the frame have been designed using a linear dynamic analysis with response

spectrum according to Eurocodes 3,8, following the provisions for high-ductility class structures.

The eigenmodes have been superimposed using a SRSS combination and they are listed in Table 3.1

along with the associated period, frequency and mass participation ratio.

Mode Total part.

(s) (Hz) UX

1 1.922 0.520 0.706 0.706

2 0.647 1.545 0.097 0.803

3 0.343 2.916 0.043 0.846

4 0.216 4.623 0.022 0.869

5 0.152 6.584 0.014 0.883

6 0.118 8.500 0.007 0.889

7 0.084 11.953 0.005 0.894

8 0.022 45.674 0.000 0.894

Table 3.1 - MRF structure modes and participation factors

The parameters used to define the response spectrum from EC8 are:

Soil type C

Modal damping = 2.00%

Behavior factor 6.0

Spectrum type: 1

the resulting design response spectrum is shown in Fig. 3.10.

0.35

0.30

Acceleration (g)

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

Period (s)

44

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

The cross-section resulting from this design are shown in Fig. 3.11. All sections are designed using

S355 steel with 355 .

3.3.3.1 Description

The actual nonlinear performance of the moment resisting frame, previously designed with linear

dynamic analysis, is now investigated using a nonlinear time-history analysis.

acceleration time-history used is the one from El Centro earthquake, which is then scaled to different

values of peak acceleration, Fig. 3.13.

45

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

In the frame modeling the masses resulting from dead and live loads are applied at the geometric

nodes of the frame. The value of the mass that has to be applied to each node can be calculated as:

where Q is the surface load for the considered load combination, and are the bay width in x

and y direction respectively.

With the load patterns considered and the combination defined in 3.3.1.2 the resulting masses are:

7.35 in the outer nodes

since outer nodes only bear half bay-width loads.

46

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

1.00

Normalized acceleration

0.50

0.00

-0.50

-1.00

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

time (s)

The properties of the Plastic Wen links used to model plastic hinges are calculated for each cross-

section in the frame and they are accounted in Table 3.2. In Fig. 3.14 - Plastic hinges numberingFig.

3.14 the numbering of plastic hinges is illustrated.

Cross-section

(kNm) (kN) (kNm)

47

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

3.3.3.2 Results

3.3.3.2.1 Displacements

In Fig. 3.16 and Fig. 3.17 the horizontal displacement of the top floor against time is plot for both

acceleration time-histories.

For 0.35 the maximum absolute displacement is equal to 0.27 m at 11.1 s. When

0.60 this value rises up to 0.41 m at 9.05 s. The increment is about 52%.

The envelope of maximum absolute displacements of the structure during the whole time span for

0.60 is shown in Fig. 3.15 (note: since its an envelope plot these displacements dont

necessarily happen at the same time).

48

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

(Scale factor 10, dimensions in m)

In both plots its easy to see that the major displacement pattern has a frequency close to the one of

the first eigenmodes of the structure, whose period was 1.92s, Table 3.1.

0.40

0.30

0.20

Top displacement (m)

0.10

0.00

-0.10

-0.20

-0.30

-0.40

-0.50

0 5 10 15 20

time (s)

49

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

0.50

0.40

0.30

Top displacement (m)

0.20

0.10

0.00

-0.10

-0.20

-0.30

-0.40

-0.50

0 5 10 15 20

time (s)

At each time-step the base shear in the structure is calculated by summing the horizontal reaction of

each restrained joint. Maximum absolute values of base shear are 1018kN for 0.35 and

1548kN for 0.60 , resulting increment is again equal to 52%.

As for the top displacement plots, the largest amplitude pattern has a period close to the one of the

first eigenmode of the structure.

1 500

1 347

1 000

500

Base Shear (kN)

-500

-1 000

-1 500

-1 548

-2 000

0 5 10 15 20

time (s)

50

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

1 500

920

1 000

Base Shear (kN)

500

-500

-1 000

-1 018

-1 500

0 5 10 15 20

time (s)

In this model energy can be dissipated by the system either by modal damping or by formation and

subsequent hysteresis of plastic hinges in the structural elements.

Plastic hinges which develop in the moment resisting frame dissipate energy in their hysteresis cycles,

thus the amount of energy dissipated by each hinge can be calculated from the moment-rotation

history.

At 0.35 only few beams develop plastic hinges at their ends and most of the dissipation is due

to modal damping (initially set to 0.02). At the end of the 20s time-span the structure dissipated

around 190kJ by modal damping and just 20kJ in plastic hinges formation.

51

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

300

250

Energy (kNm)

200

Input En.

Plastic Hinges

100 Kinetic En.

Potential En.

50

0

0 5 10 15 20

Time (s)

The contribution of plastic hinges to energy dissipation becomes significant only in the 0.60g

analysis. In this case all the beams develop plastic hinges at their ends, and section curvatures are

large enough to generate efficient hysteresis cycles. In this case the amount of energy dissipate by

hinges nonlinearity is 275kJ and modal damping contribution is equal to 350kJ.

700

600

500

Energy (kNm)

Input En.

400

Modal Damping

300 Plastic Hinges

Kinetic En.

200

Potential En.

100

0

0 5 10 15 20

Time (s)

However in both cases hinges form only at beams ends and not in column elements. This reflects the

effect of EC8 provisions regarding the strength hierarchy of connected structural elements.

52

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

700.0

600.0

Enegry (kJ)

500.0

400.0

300.0

200.0

100.0

0.0

0.35g 0.60g

Plastic hinges 20.4 278.0

Modal Damping 191.9 350.1

In the following figures hysteresis cycles for each active hinge during 0.60g analysis are plot (for the

numbering sequence see Fig. 3.14). Each plot has link rotation (radians) on the horizontal axis and

bending moment (kN) on vertical axis.

53

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

400 400 400

300 300 300

200 200 200

100 100 100

0 0 0

-100 -100 -100

-200 -200 -200

-300 -300 -300

-400 -400 -400

-0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02

400 400 400

300 300 300

200 200 200

100 100 100

0 0 0

-100 -100 -100

-200 -200 -200

-300 -300 -300

-400 -400 -400

-0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02

400 400 400

300 300 300

200 200 200

100 100 100

0 0 0

-100 -100 -100

-200 -200 -200

-300 -300 -300

-400 -400 -400

-0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02

400 400 400

300 300 300

200 200 200

100 100 100

0 0 0

-100 -100 -100

-200 -200 -200

-300 -300 -300

-400 -400 -400

-0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02

Page 1/6

54

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

400 400 400

300 300 300

200 200 200

100 100 100

0 0 0

-100 -100 -100

-200 -200 -200

-300 -300 -300

-400 -400 -400

-0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02

400 400 400

300 300 300

200 200 200

100 100 100

0 0 0

-100 -100 -100

-200 -200 -200

-300 -300 -300

-400 -400 -400

-0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02

400 400 400

300 300 300

200 200 200

100 100 100

0 0 0

-100 -100 -100

-200 -200 -200

-300 -300 -300

-400 -400 -400

-0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02

400 400 400

300 300 300

200 200 200

100 100 100

0 0 0

-100 -100 -100

-200 -200 -200

-300 -300 -300

-400 -400 -400

-0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02

Page 2/6

55

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

400 400 400

300 300 300

200 200 200

100 100 100

0 0 0

-100 -100 -100

-200 -200 -200

-300 -300 -300

-400 -400 -400

-0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02

400 400 400

300 300 300

200 200 200

100 100 100

0 0 0

-100 -100 -100

-200 -200 -200

-300 -300 -300

-400 -400 -400

-0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02

400 400 400

300 300 300

200 200 200

100 100 100

0 0 0

-100 -100 -100

-200 -200 -200

-300 -300 -300

-400 -400 -400

-0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02

400 400 400

300 300 300

200 200 200

100 100 100

0 0 0

-100 -100 -100

-200 -200 -200

-300 -300 -300

-400 -400 -400

-0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02

Page 3/6

56

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

400 400 400

300 300 300

200 200 200

100 100 100

0 0 0

-100 -100 -100

-200 -200 -200

-300 -300 -300

-400 -400 -400

-0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02

400 300 300

300

200 200

200

100 100

100

0 0 0

-100

-100 -100

-200

-200 -200

-300

-400 -300 -300

-0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02

300 300 300

0 0 0

-0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02

300 300 300

0 0 0

-0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02

Page 4/6

57

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

300 300 200

150

200 200

100

100 100 50

0

0 0

-50

-100 -100 -100

-150

-200 -200

-200

-300 -300 -250

-0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02

200 200 200

150 150 150

100 100 100

50 50 50

0 0 0

-50 -50 -50

-100 -100 -100

-150 -150 -150

-200 -200 -200

-250 -250 -250

-0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02

200 200 200

150 150 150

100 100 100

50 50 50

0 0 0

-50 -50 -50

-100 -100 -100

-150 -150 -150

-200 -200 -200

-250 -250 -250

-0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02

200 200 250

150 150 200

100 100 150

50 50 100

50

0 0

0

-50 -50

-50

-100 -100 -100

-150 -150 -150

-200 -200 -200

-250 -250 -250

-0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02

Page 5/6

58

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

150 100 150

100 50 100

50 0 50

0 -50 0

-50 -100 -50

-100 -150 -100

-150 -200 -150

-200 -250 -200

-0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02

100 150 100

50 100 50

0 50 0

-50 0 -50

-100 -50 -100

-150 -100 -150

-200 -150 -200

-250 -200 -250

-0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02

150 100 150

100 50 100

50 0 50

0 -50 0

-50 -100 -50

-100 -150 -100

-150 -200 -150

-200 -250 -200

-0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.02

100

50

0

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-0.02 0.00 0.02

Page 6/6

59

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

Hysteretic Hysteretic

Link ID Energy Link ID Energy

(kJ) (kJ)

Beam_02 3.784 Beam_38 5.970

Beam_03 1.163 Beam_39 3.352

Beam_04 3.451 Beam_40 9.887

Beam_05 1.168 Beam_41 7.732

Beam_06 3.471 Beam_42 5.411

Beam_07 1.171 Beam_43 4.791

Beam_08 3.423 Beam_44 5.682

Beam_09 1.174 Beam_45 4.851

Beam_10 6.381 Beam_46 5.648

Beam_11 8.577 Beam_47 3.762

Beam_12 8.189 Beam_48 5.543

Beam_13 3.409 Beam_49 4.072

Beam_14 7.933 Beam_50 6.816

Beam_15 3.369 Beam_51 0.744

Beam_16 7.738 Beam_52 1.777

Beam_17 3.367 Beam_53 0.693

Beam_18 8.004 Beam_54 1.784

Beam_19 3.440 Beam_55 0.731

Beam_20 14.531 Beam_56 1.793

Beam_21 6.579 Beam_57 0.655

Beam_22 5.776 Beam_58 1.738

Beam_23 2.654 Beam_59 0.638

Beam_24 5.810 Beam_60 1.924

Beam_25 2.590 Beam_61 0.022

Beam_26 5.961 Beam_62 0.235

Beam_27 2.706 Beam_63 0.021

Beam_28 5.917 Beam_64 0.196

Beam_29 2.808 Beam_65 0.025

Beam_30 10.276 Beam_66 0.182

Beam_31 8.194 Beam_67 0.021

Beam_32 5.980 Beam_68 0.183

Beam_33 4.122 Beam_69 0.029

Beam_34 5.887 Beam_70 0.254

Beam_35 3.598

Total 272.5

Beam_36 6.072

60

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

3.3.4.1 Description

The structure is upgraded by bracing the two most outer bays of each story in the four perimeter

frames. The 2D frame analyses consider one of the two XZ frames braced with the BDSP. The

analyses are carried out as in 3.3.3, using two acceleration time-histories with different peak values.

In modeling the structure it is assumed that all the forces generated by the ground acceleration are

borne only by the braced frames, hence neglecting the contribution of un-braced frames to building

stiffness. This way the masses applied at the nodes are calculated from loads acting on half the

building depth in the direction perpendicular to the modeled frame, Fig. 3.24.

Mode Total part.

(s) UX

2 0.309 0.170 0.836

3 0.173 0.038 0.874

61

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

The dimensions and properties of the shear panels are optimized iteratively to provide the structure

with enough strength and ductility to resist the maximum acceleration time-history considered. At the

same time another objective has to be achieved, which is preventing the original structural elements

to fail or even experience any plastic deformation, even if they wouldnt necessarily bring to the

failure of the element. The resulting combination of shear panels sizes is summarized in Table 3.6

and as expected the optimization resulted in a decrease of stiffness and yield load from the bottom of

the structure to the top, Fig. 3.25. The four short braces in the BDSPs are designed with HE280A

cross-section with S355 steel.

62

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

Level

(mm) (mm) (kN) (kN/m) (kN) (kN/m)

1 1000x583 4 554.2 263736 320.8 176740 2.0 0.05

2 900x525 4 498.8 263736 288.7 176740 2.0 0.05

3 900x525 4 498.8 263736 288.7 176740 2.0 0.05

4 900x525 4 498.8 263736 288.7 176740 2.0 0.05

5 900x525 4 498.8 263736 288.7 176740 2.0 0.05

6 900x525 3 374.1 197802 216.6 132555 2.0 0.05

7 900x525 3 374.1 197802 216.6 132555 2.0 0.05

Table 3.6 - BDSP structure: devices properties

7

6

5

Level

4

3

2

1

Vy (kN)

3.3.4.2 Results

3.3.4.2.1 Displacements

The displacements of the BDSP equipped frame are less than the ones of the original structure. At

0.35 the maximum displacement at the top of the structure is 8.3cm, which becomes 20.2cm

at 0.60g acceleration.

63

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

0.20

Top displacement (m)

0.10 0.083

0.00

-0.10

-0.20

0 5 10 15 20

time (s)

0.30

0.202

0.20

Top displacement (m)

0.10

0.00

-0.10

-0.20

-0.30

0 5 10 15 20

time (s)

64

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

(Scale factor 10, dimensions in m)

As for the original structure model the base shear is calculated by summing up the reaction forces in

nodes at each time-step. Maximum values of base shear range from 2030kN for peak acceleration

0.30g to 2640kN at 0.60g. Plots are shown in pictures below.

2 500

2 000 2032

1 500

Base Shear (kN)

1 000

500

-500

-1 000

-1 500

-2 000

0 5 10 15 20

time (s)

65

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

3 000

2642

2 000

Base Shear (kN)

1 000

-1 000

-2 000

-3 000

0 5 10 15 20

time (s)

In the braced frame energy is dissipated almost entirely by the nonlinear elements modeling the shear

panels. Either at 0.35g and 0.60g the drift control provided by the bracing system prevents beams

from developing plastic hinges. In the following figures the energy balance time-histories are plot.

The ratio of energy dissipated by BDSPs is about 83% for both acceleration amplitudes, while modal

damping accounts for a 15-16% dissipation, Fig. 3.31.

2000.0

1600.0

Enegry (kJ)

1200.0

800.0

400.0

0.0

0.35g 0.60g

BDSP 556.0 1513.9

Modal Damping 114.0 274.8

In Table 3.7 seven force-displacement plots are shown, one for each level of the building. Each plot

refers to one of the four coupled links that are inserted in each story. Therefore their horizontal axis is

the axial shortening in the link U1 in m and the vertical axis is the applied axial force Fy in kN.

66

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

In Fig. 3.34 a comparison of link hysteretic behavior for different peak accelerations is plot. The

force-displacement curves of a single link are superimposed. The link considered is one of the four

links at Level 1 in the frame. As expected the plots are wider for larger accelerations, resulting in

greater energy dissipation.

2000

1800

1600

1400

Energy (kNm)

800 BDSP

200

0

0 5 10 15 20

Time (s)

800

700

600

Energy (kNm)

BDSP

300

Kinetic En.

200

Potential En.

100

0

0 5 10 15 20

Time (s)

67

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

600 600

200 200

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400

-600 -600

-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

600 600

200 200

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400

-600 -600

-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02

600 600

200 200

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400

-600 -600

-0.02 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01

600

400 Level 7

200

-200

-400

-600

-0.01 0.00 0.01

68

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

600

400

0.60g

200

Axial force (kN)

0

0.35g

-200

0.20g

-400

-600

-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03

Axial displacement (m)

The nonlinear analyses results prove that the studied bracing system is able to enhance the

performance of the structure, by providing additional stiffness and most important high ductility.

3000.0

Base shear (kN)

2000.0

1000.0

0.0

0.35g 0.60g

BDSP 2032.3 2642.4

MRF 1017.7 1547.6

The increase in stiffness against lateral displacements causes an increase in base shear about 40-50%,

Fig. 3.35. However this increase does not result in larger stresses in original structural elements,

since it is resisted by the bracing system itself: columns shearing force will then withstand only a

minor portion of the total horizontal forces. On the other hand the X-braced configuration of the

system will translate the lateral force into additional axial loads in surrounding column: these loads

69

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

will have opposite sign, therefore at each step one of the two columns will have a compression load,

which will sum up with the effect of gravity loads.

50

41.5

27.4

30 MRF

20

8.3 20.2 BDSP

10

0

0.35g 0.60g

Peak acceleration

The most favorable effect of this greater stiffness is the better drift control provided to the building.

The global reduction in lateral drifts can be identified in the maximum displacement at top of the

building, which is reduced by 71% in the 0.35g analysis and by 51% in the 0.60g one, Fig. 3.36.

7 7

6 6

5 5

Level

Level

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

Maximum inter-story drift (cm) Maximum inter-story drift (cm)

Fig. 3.37 - Inter-story drift comparison - ag = 0.35g Fig. 3.38 - Inter-story drift comparison - ag = 0.60g

To the global reduction of lateral drifts a reduction of inter-story drifts is associated: in Fig. 3.37 and

Fig. 3.38 the maximum inter-story drifts at different levels are plotted for both the original and the

upgraded frame. The average reduction range from 50% to 70%, proving that in the upgraded

structure columns, as well as beams, are expected to experience less stress in terms of bending

moment. At the same time limited inter-story drifts also result in minor damages in non-structural

architectural elements.

70

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

From analyses it can be also inferred that the shear panel system while preventing the structural

elements from developing plastic hinges, accounts for all the plastic dissipation in the building. The

different energy dissipation behaviors are compared in Fig. 3.39. The absolute amount of energy

dissipated by modal damping is less in the braced frame than it is in the MRF structure, predicting

less damage in all the non-structural elements which are not included in the finite elements model. At

the same time the BDSP can be say to be more efficient in dissipating energy, since it is able to

dissipate a much larger portion of input energy than the plastic hinges.

2000

1600

Enegry (kJ)

1200

800

400

0

0.35g 0.35g 0.60g 0.60g

MRF BDSP MRF BDSP

Plastic hinges 20.4 278.0

BDSP 556.0 1513.9

Modal Damping 191.9 350.1

Modal Damping 114.0 274.8

71

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

This investigation concerns the retrofitting of an existing building initially designed only to resist

static loads, hence no provisions for seismic resistance were followed during its design. The study

focus on the capability of the BDSP bracing system to provide additional strength and ductility to the

frame so that it can resist moderate earthquakes. At the same time additional forces created by the

bracing system should be limited so that the original structure will not fail. This last condition will be

found to be the governing criterion for bracing characteristics in this case, since the original elements

designed majorly for vertical loads are mostly insufficient when large lateral loads are taken into

consideration.

72

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

3.4.1.1 Geometry

The studied building is a six-stories building, all stories are 3.00m high except the first one which

height is 4.00m. Each story has 3 bays in both X and Y direction, 5.00m wide. In the analyses frames

parallel to the ZX plane are considered, the cross-sections are shown in Fig. 3.40. All elements are

made out of S275 steel with 275 .

The structure is fixed at the bottom nodes, and connections between elements are continuous.

Live load 2.00 /

0.30

In Fig. 3.41 the influence areas used to compute the acting loads and masses on both models are

shown: the hypotheses used are the same described in the 7-stories upgrade building.

Fig. 3.41 - Loads and masses influence areas in the two models

73

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

3.4.2.1 Description

The original structure is evaluated by running several analyses with different peak ground

acceleration time-histories, generated scaling the El Centro earthquake, Fig. 3.13.

Links are inserted at beam and columns ends to predict the formation and evolution of plastic hinges.

In Table 3.8 the properties of the links used in the model are listed, for each considered combination

of cross-section and axial loaf

Cross-section

(kNm) (kN) (kNm)

HE220B 73555 700 145.7

HE140B 21557 150 51.8

HE160B 31150 280 69.6

HE180B 42567 370 92.9

HE200B 56960 420 126.0

HE200B 56960 550 116.5

HE240B 93833 680 197.8

HE260B 114769 800 237.8

The resulting masses applied at geometric nodes in the frame are shown in Fig. 3.42.

The El Centro acceleration time-history has been scaled to peak ground accelerations equal to 0.10g ,

0.20g , 0.35g and 0.60g. Analyses are carried out the same way as described in 3.3.3.

Mode Total part.

(s) UX

1 1.776 0.770 0.770

2 0.706 0.131 0.901

3 0.436 0.051 0.952

74

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

3.4.2.2 Results

3.4.2.2.1 Displacements

In Fig. 3.43 the horizontal displacement time-histories at the top of the 6th level for different peak

accelerations are plotted.

The response of the structure is mostly linear up to 0.20g, while the formation of plastic hinges in

vertical elements at 0.35g increases the displacement.

At 0.60g the inadequacy of the structure with respect to this acceleration is highlighted by the large

plastic rotations in the columns, which arent fully recovered hence resulting in a permanent

deformation of the structure: the translation of the corresponding plot in Fig. 3.43 clearly underlines

this behavior.

75

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

0.60

0.50 0.10g

0.40

Top displacement (m)

0.30

0.20g

0.20

0.10

0.35g

0.00

-0.10

-0.20 0.60g

-0.30

0 5 10 15 20

time (s)

Observations similar to those for the top displacements can be made for the base shear. The shape is

mostly constant, while the amplitude is linear up to 0.20g. At 0.35g the formation of plastic hinges in

the columns limits the stiffness of the structure, therefore the value of base shear stops to increase.

For the same reason at 0.60g values of base shear are only slightly larger than the ones for lower

accelerations, Fig. 3.44.

500

400

300

0.10g

200

Base shear (kN)

100 0.20g

0

-100 0.35g

-200

-300 0.60g

-400

-500

0 5 10 15 20

time (s)

76

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

In the original structure model the seismic input energy can be dissipated by either modal damping or

plastic hinges at the end of beams and column elements. The energy dissipated in structural elements

increases with the scale of the imposed acceleration. It is modest at 0.20g where hinges form in some

of the columns, while it increases at 0.35g when more columns develop plastic hinges. At 0.60g the

energy dissipated in structural elements is much greater than the one in global damping: however the

hinges model used lacks of a failure or load-dropping point, therefore the large rotations in plastic

hinges calculated during the simulation (maximum values of 40-50 mrad) will most likely lead to

collapse of the column elements.

45

40

35

Energy (kNm)

30

Input En.

25

Modal Damping

20

Plastic Hinges

15 Kinetic En.

10 Potential En.

0

0 5 10 15 20

Time (s)

77

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

120

100

Energy (kNm)

80

Input En.

60 Modal Damping

Plastic Hinges

40 Kinetic En.

Potential En.

20

0

0 5 10 15 20

Time (s)

300

250

Energy (kNm)

200

Input En.

Plastic Hinges

100 Kinetic En.

Potential En.

50

0

0 5 10 15 20

Time (s)

In order to evaluate the possibility of the bracing system to retrofit the original structure, it is

necessary to evaluate the seismic response of the original structure.

78

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

For peak-accelerations up to 0.20g plastic hinges form in columns, and from the analyses they are

expected to dissipate a modest amount of energy. The structure is likely to resist such seismic event,

with minor damages in vertical elements.

At 0.35g plastic hinges develop in most of the columns, with maximum rotations reaching 15mrad.

Hence the structure should be expected to undergo severe structural damages in vertical elements

while dissipating energy. Even if the collapse cannot be predicted exactly, damages in the structure

would make it unsafe and unusable.

At 0.60g maximum rotations in the plastic hinges reach amplitudes of 40-50mrad, therefore collapse

of the structure has to expected at this acceleration.

In the simulations plastic hinges always take place in the vertical elements rather than in beams. This

is due to the lack of seismic design of the original structure, where the strong column-weak beam

criterion was not met.

It is worth remembering that the purpose of these analyses is to investigate the behavior of the

original, non-seismic structure in order to be able to make a consistent comparison with the

retrofitted structure. In reality one could not rely on the high ductility of the structural elements, since

a lack of seismic design also means that no provisions were met to ensure that the structure could

achieve the predicted ductility levels.

3.4.3.1 Description

The original structure is braced by placing a single series of shear panels in the middle bay on each

story. The structure is imagined to be braced on both the outer frames parallel to the ZX plane: the

loads are then multiplied by half the bay width in Y direction, while the concentrated masses account

for half the whole building depth, Fig. 3.48.

Level

(mm) (mm) (kN) (kN/m) (kN) (kN/m)

1 1100x880 5 762.1 240385 488.0 197115 2.0 0.05

2 1100x770 3 457.2 164835 279.1 122802 2.0 0.05

3 900x630 3 374.1 164835 228.3 122802 2.0 0.05

4 800x560 3 332.5 164835 203.0 122802 2.0 0.05

5 800x560 3 332.5 164835 203.0 122802 2.0 0.05

6 800x560 3 332.5 164835 203.0 122802 2.0 0.05

Table 3.10 - Retrofitted structure: BDSP devices properties

79

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

Mode Total part.

(s) UX

1 0.607 0.725 0.725

2 0.170 0.185 0.910

3 0.089 0.051 0.961

The sizes of devices at different levels are such that their stiffness and strength is tapered from

greater to lower values from bottom to top levels, Fig. 3.49. The devices are chosen iteratively to

obtain an optimal behavior under seismic excitation: the main objective of the design has been to

preserve the original structural elements and dont allow for any yielding in them. All the panels are

connected to the structure using HE280A braces. The resulting combination of shear panels is

illustrated in Table 3.10.

80

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

Level

3

0 500 1000

Vy (kN)

3.4.3.2 Results

3.4.3.2.1 Displacements

As expected displacements in the braced structure are less than the ones in the original structure. At

0.35g the maximum absolute displacement at the top is 8.2cm, rising to 12.1cm at 0.60g.

0.15

0.10

0.10g

Top displacement (m)

0.05

0.20g

0.00

0.35g

-0.05

0.60g

-0.10

-0.15

0 5 10 15 20

time (s)

81

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

1 000

800

600

0.10g

Top displacement (m)

400

200

0.20g

0

-200 0.35g

-400

-600 0.60g

-800

-1 000

0 5 10 15 20

time (s)

The retrofitted frame can dissipate energy in plastic hinges at beams ends and in links equivalent to

the shear panels. Still in all the analyses limited inter-story drifts and higher stiffness of the bracing

systems with respect to other structural elements, prevent the beams from developing plastic hinges.

Hence energy is dissipated exclusively in the BDSPs. Time histories of energy balance are shown in

Fig. 3.52 and Fig. 3.53.

At 0.35g the amount of energy dissipated in shear panels is equal to 95kJ, which is the 73% of the

total input energy; modal damping dissipates 34kJ equal to 26% of the input energy.

The retrofitted structure can resist peak accelerations up to 0.60g with no damages in structural

elements: in this case the portions of dissipated energy are 81% in the BDSPs and 18% in modal

damping.

The hysteresis cycles of one of the two links at each level in the frame are shown in Table 3.12.

In Fig. 3.54 the force-displacement history of the link at Level 3 is plot for different peak

accelerations. At 0.20 the dissipation in this specific element is modest, since the link

experience few displacements beyond its elastic limit. Dissipation becomes significant at 0.30

when hysteresis cycles get wider.

82

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

45

40

35

Energy (kNm)

30

Kinetic En.

25

Input En.

20

Modal Damping

15 Potential En.

10 BDSP

0

0 5 10 15 20

Time (s)

160

140

120

Kinetic En.

Energy (kNm)

100

Input En.

80

Modal Damping

60

Potential En.

40 BDSP

20

0

0 5 10 15 20

Time (s)

83

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

450

400

350

Kinetic En.

Energy (kNm)

300

100 BDSP

50

0

0 5 10 15 20

Time (s)

84

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

600 600

Level 1 Level 2

400 400

200 200

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400

-600 -600

-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03

600 600

Level 3 Level 4

400 400

200 200

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400

-600 -600

-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03

600 600

Level 5 Level 6

400 400

200 200

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400

-600 -600

-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03

85

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

400

300

200

0.60g

Axial force (kN)

100

0

0.35g

-100

-200 0.20g

-300

-400

-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03

Axial displacement (m)

86

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

The retrofitting of the non-seismic structure succeeded in providing the frame with enough stiffness,

strength and ductility to resist major ground accelerations.

Displacements in the retrofitted structure at 0.35g are reduced with respect to the original one by 60-

80%, as can be seen in Fig. 3.55 where the comparison between maximum interstory drifts is shown.

In Fig. 3.58 the displacement at the top of the frame for both the original and the retrofitted frame is

plot against the acceleration scale. The different behavior of the two structures is highlighted by this

plots, where it can be seen that the displacement in the original structure increases much more rapidly

than in the retrofitted one.

6 6

5 5

4

Level

4

Level

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 2.5 5 7.5 10 0 5 10 15 20 25

Maximum inter-story drift (cm) Maximum inter-story drift (cm)

Fig. 3.55 - Inter-story drift comparison - ag=0.35g Fig. 3.56 - Inter-story drift comparison - ag=0.60g

4

Level

0.35g

3

0.60g

2

0 2.5 5

Maximum inter-story drift (cm)

The increase in base shear is modest, as opposite to the increase in horizontal force found in the

upgraded 7-stories structure. This is due to the fact that the building in this case is less deep in Y

87

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped

with BDSP

direction with only 3 bays, therefore the difference in applied masses between the MRF and the

BDSP frames is lower.

60

54.6

50

40

MRF

30 21.4

20 13.9

8.2 BDSP

10 12.1

6.2

0

0.20g 0.35g 0.60g

Peak acceleration

The original structure failed the strength check in most columns already at 0.35g, while all the

elements in the retrofitted structure satisfied the check even at 0.60g. The structure previously

inadequate to resist the acceleration time-history scaled at 0.35g, after the bracing can clearly resist

that same ground motion. Plus it can even resist stronger excitations up to 0.60g.

1000.0

800.0

Base shear (kN)

600.0

400.0

200.0

0.0

0.10g 0.20g 0.35g 0.60g

BDSP 355.2 572.9 649.0 800.3

MRF 163.7 294.2 370.9 399.9

88

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 4. BDSP back-analysis in ABAQUS

In 3.2.2 has been illustrated the procedure used to translate the force-displacement behavior of a

generic shear panel into a pair of equivalent links with nonlinear force-displacement behavior in axial

direction. Even though the force-displacement response of the BDSP system has been proven by

extensive analyses in ABAQUS to be stable even after several drift cycle, the arbitrariness of the drift

history can be thought to be affecting the result.

The actual force-displacement response, which is identified with the response calculated by means of

the three-dimensional ABAQUS model, could in fact vary when the drift history is different from the

one used to design the system. In order to prove the validity of the 2-links model when it comes to

random, uneven drift histories a verification analysis is performed.

To carry out this verification analysis one inter-story drift history from a SAP2000 analysis is applied

as displacement in a ABAQUS model, in the same way as in the first part of this study. The

ABAQUS model will be modified to match panel sizes and braces sections as the one inserted in

SAP2000.

The inter-story drifts considered is the one of the 1st level of the upgraded 7-stories building in 3.3.4

in the 0.60g peak acceleration analysis. One of the two BDSP systems is taken into consideration and

its actual horizontal drift history is derived from the axial deformation of one of the two links. With

reference to Fig. 3.6, the lateral drift that has to be applied in the ABAQUS model can be

calculated as:

cos

Where atan / and is the axial elongation in one of the links. In Fig. 4.1 is plotted

against the 20s time span.

89

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 4. BDSP back-analysis in ABAQUS

3.00

2.00

1.00

(cm)

0.00

-1.00

-2.00

-3.00

0 5 10 15 20

time (s)

Braces

(m) (mm) (mm)

and they are used to create the three-dimensional shell model in ABAQUS, shown in Fig. 4.2.

The properties of the analysis are the same described in 2.3.1, with material e geometric

nonlinearities.

The force-displacement response calculated in ABAQUS is superimposed to the one obtained from

frame analysis, Fig. 4.3. The lateral load in the bracing system considered in SAP2000 is worked out

by considering the symmetric behavior of the pair of equivalent links:

2 cos

From the superimposed plots its clear that the two models are in good accordance with each other.

The ABAQUS model obviously presents some fluctuations, due to complexity of the model and

some minor local behaviors which yet dont affect the global behavior. The dissipated energy can

also be said to be well predicted in the SAP2000 links model, since it basically represents the area

surrounded by the force-displacement plots.

90

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 4. BDSP back-analysis in ABAQUS

In Fig. 4.4 the contour plot of the PEEQ index is shown, and as predicted during the design of the

system, plastic deformations are limited to the shear panel and braces remain elastic during the whole

load history.

1000

Lateral load V (kN)

500

SAP2000

0

ABAQUS

-500

-1000

-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

Inter-story drift (cm)

91

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 4. BDSP back-analysis in ABAQUS

The procedure used to model the nonlinear behavior of the BDSP into the frame model in SAP2000

has been proven to be valid and accurate enough for its implementation.

92

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 5. Conclusions

5. Conclusions

The study completed in this work regarding the Braced Ductile Shear Panel (BDSP), a new

dissipative bracing system for steel frames, is conceptually divided into two main parts.

The first part, concerning the design from scratch of the bracing system, mainly consists of detailed

three-dimensional finite elements analyses (FEA), guided by simplified analytical models. These

analyses gave the guidelines for sizing the elements of the system. Equations have been worked out

and calibrated to have a rough estimation of the critical buckling load of the system, and they allow

to define braces cross-section and stiffening requirements on the BDSP web.

The force-displacement response of the system has been described with a bilinear elastic-plastic

relationship, which synthesizes the system nonlinear behavior. The goal of limiting plastic dissipation

inside the BDSP has been proven to be easily achievable, thanks to the different yield stresses in the

two steel grades used and the requirements on braces sections with respect to the global buckling. It

can be concluded that a careful design of the elements leads to satisfaction of all the goals and criteria

regarding the local behavior of the panel.

The second part of the work is aimed at evaluating the actual benefits that the installation of the

bracing system brings to a framed steel structure. This investigation has been conducted on two

different buildings: the first, already designed for resisting seismic loads, has been upgraded with two

series of BDSPs; the second, not designed for any seismic load, has been retrofitted with the studied

bracing system. In both cases the results were satisfactory.

The upgraded building could now resist peak accelerations larger than the ones it was originally

designed for with no damages at the original structural elements.

The retrofitted building, which was originally able to elastically resist a peak acceleration around

0.20g, after the insertion of a series of BDSPs could resist the considered acceleration time-history

scaled up to 0.60g peak value.

93

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 5. Conclusions

The process of designing the configuration of bracings is pretty straightforward, since the only major

concern during this process is limiting the additional compressive axial force that the braces develop

in the attaching columns. Iteratively this problem can be solved by either decreasing the yield load of

the panel on that level, or by decreasing the stiffness of the level above.

The back-analysis worked out in the end proves the validity of the two-links nonlinear model in

SAP2000 equivalent to the BDSP system.

In conclusion, the studied system seems to be very promising and it surely deserve further attention

in the future. Enough work has been done on numerical ground and experimental tests are now

needed in order to prove or invalidate the results that have been obtained up to this point.

94

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system

Acknowledgements Ringraziamenti

I would like to thank Prof. Eng. Marco Vorrei ringraziare il Prof. Ing. Marco Valente

Valente for his direction and guidance, which per la sua guida e I suoi consigli, che mi hanno

allowed me to develop this thesis with a permesso di sviluppare questa tesi seguendo un

consistent scientific approach. solido approccio scientifico.

Special thanks go to Prof. Arthur Un ringraziamento speciale va al Prof. Arthur

Huckelbridge who originally conceived the Huckelbridge, che ha inizialmente concepito il

Braced Ductile Shear Panel and who let me Braced Ductile Shear Panel e che mi ha

work on his idea while giving me concesso di lavorare sulla sua idea e al tempo

fundamental advices. stesso mi ha fornito importanti suggerimenti.

I want to thank my family, for always Voglio ringraziare la mia famiglia, per avermi

supporting me and respecting my choices, sempre supportato e rispettato le mie scelte e per

and for trusting me when they had a different avermi dato fiducia sebbene talvolta le nostre

opinion. opinioni fossero discordanti.

Thanks will not be enough for my closest I ringraziamenti non saranno mai abbastanza

friends, who stayed beside me to share joys per i miei amici pi cari che mi sono rimasti

and hard times, and whose friendship accanto per condividere gioie e momenti difficili

overcame all sort of obstacles, even the ones e la cui amicizia ha superato ogni tipo di

I wouldnt expect they could. ostacoli, anche quelli che non mi sarei aspettato

potessero superare.

I need to say thanks also to people I met Devo ringraziare anche le persone che ho

during my studies abroad, both in Sweden conosciuto durante i miei studi allestero, sia in

and Minnesota. Although I shared with them Svezia che in Minnesota. Anche se ho condiviso

a relatively short time, they helped me with con loro solo un periodo relativamente breve, mi

their support and most important they made hanno aiutato con il loro appoggio e ancora pi

me feel home far away from home. importante mi hanno fatto sentire a casa quando

ero lontano da casa.

95

Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system

References

[1] Alinia, M., Dastfan, M.: Cyclic behaviour, deformability and rigidity of stiffened steel shear

panels. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63, 554-563 (2007)

[3] Cofie, N., Krawinkler, H.: Uniaxial cyclic stress-strain behavior of structural steel. Journal of

Engineering Mechanics 111(9) (September 1985)

[5] EN-1998: Eurocode 8 - Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures. (2004)

[6] Computers and Structures: SAP2000 14 Analysis Reference Manual., Berkley, CA, USA (2010)

[7] Chan, R., Albermani, F., Williams, M.: Hysteretic Damping of Shear Panel Energy Dissipater.

In : 5th Australasian Congress on Applied Mechanics (2007)

[8] Moghaddam, H., Hajirasouliha, I., Doostan, A.: Optimum seismic design of concentrically

braced steel frames: concepts and design procedures. Journal of Constructional Steel

Research(61), 151-166 (2005)

[9] D'Aniello, M.: Steel dissipative bracing systems for seismic retrofitting of existing structures:

theory and testing - PhD Thesis. Universit degli studi di Napoli Federico II (2007)

[10] Mostacci, M.: Procedure di progetto per telai in acciaio con controventi dissipativi ad instabilit

impedita in zona sismica. Politecnico di Milano, Facolt di Ingegneria Civile (2008-09)

[11] Hibbit, Karlson, Sorensen: Abaqus Analysis User's Manual 6.8. (2005)

96

- Corso Di Strutture in Acciaio - MasiCaricato dabluenebula
- Iperbole di eulero metodo Omega.pdfCaricato daHULIOSMELLA
- AZ PneumaticCaricato dadejanr111
- Proporzionamento Del Pistone Oleodinamico Ver 1_2Caricato dad_u_i_l_i_o
- Faella Nigro Martinelli DeSanto PaperCTE2004 02Caricato daAngela Scott
- tecnica costruzioni in acciaioCaricato daDorian Vito
- 14 Formule per oleodinamica.pdfCaricato dafabio
- Marco TeoricoCaricato daEva Luz Alvarez Molina
- strutture_in_acciaio.pdfCaricato dajkklfl
- Antisisma Orlando 26.11.2012Caricato daStefano Milani
- Zaghi Strutture in AcciaioCaricato dagrandmastercaz
- 01_Dati_tecniciCaricato daSergiu Griu
- Calcolo RENALECaricato daTommaso Pascon
- giuntosaldatoCaricato daValerioZucchelli
- consolidamento strutture muraturaCaricato daKla Jiyuu
- Recupero01-Coperture in legno.pdfCaricato dapaolo
- 2014_07_Catta_01Caricato daFederica Miglietta
- Modelli CostitutiviCaricato daPalazzoloFilippo
- Prove Sui MaterialiCaricato daantolamo
- Residual Stress RailCaricato daDav89
- Typical Mem ConCaricato daRamakrishnan Sakthivel
- LaboratorioCaricato daEyder
- CTA97-1.pdfCaricato daVincenzo Piluso
- UNIN13001-3-1_2005_EENCaricato daAnonymous Zkr0wyl2p
- 2007.SimoneCaricato daBrian Nelson
- Indice TG MEF.docxCaricato dafranco
- (1) Trazione e CompressioneCaricato daGianluca Mustillo
- teoria della similitudineCaricato daVincent Rog
- Teoria Della PlasticitaCaricato daMary Joyce Alvarez
- UNIN13001-3-1_2005_EENCaricato daalfonxxl

- 2767Caricato dasherrysure22
- Termodinamica Applicata 2 - Cicli inversi.pdfCaricato darobbui80
- 11 - Deformazione Plastica - ForgiaturaCaricato daDiego Lasso
- Gli Acciai Inossidabili Revisione LvCaricato damichelevassallo
- APOYOS HDHCaricato daChristian Torres
- 11CINDK AA08-09 DispenseCaricato daProp13
- Fluido Comp ProemioCaricato daalfierebastardo
- Cedimenti Per Usura Di Organi MeccaniciCaricato datazzorro
- Cenni di TermodinamicaCaricato daAlessia Serena Cobain
- Nitrurazione - WikipediaCaricato dagioscorza2
- ftecnica03.pdfCaricato dafab
- Cemento armato precompresso.pdfCaricato daReriel devil
- 02_LTEC_Predimensionamento Ponte Pedonale.pdfCaricato daigualdi
- EN 13001 - Cranes - General design.pdfCaricato daMargaret

## Molto più che documenti.

Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.