Sei sulla pagina 1di 107

POLITECNICO DI MILANO

Facolt di Ingegneria Civile, Ambientale e Territoriale


Corso di Laurea Specialistica in Ingegneria Civile - Orientamento Strutture

Braced Ductile Shear Panel:


a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system

Relatore:
Prof. Ing. Marco Valente

Tesi di Laurea di:


Giannuzzi Davide - matr. 725047

Anno Accademico 2010-2011


Index

Notation iv

Abstract (Italiano) vi

Abstract viii

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Current dissipative bracing systems ..................................................................................2

1.2 BDSP bracing system ..........................................................................................................3

1.3 Study outline ........................................................................................................................4

2. Design of the bracing system 6

2.1 Design process ......................................................................................................................6

2.2 Problem analysis and preliminary analytical models ......................................................7

2.2.1 Linear elastic model .................................................................................................................... 7

2.2.2 Elastic-plastic model ................................................................................................................... 8

2.2.2.1 Continuous moment frame connection .............................................................................. 9

2.2.2.2 Pinned frame connection ................................................................................................. 10

2.2.2.3 Calculation of secant shear modulus Gsec ........................................................................ 11

2.2.3 Elastic buckling ........................................................................................................................ 11

2.2.3.1 Global out-of-plane buckling .......................................................................................... 12

2.2.3.2 BDSP plate shear buckling .............................................................................................. 15

2.3 Finite Elements Analysis ...................................................................................................16

2.3.1 FE model description ................................................................................................................ 16

2.3.1.1 Geometry ......................................................................................................................... 16

2.3.1.2 Materials .......................................................................................................................... 17

2.3.1.3 Loads and boundary conditions ....................................................................................... 18

2.3.1.4 Analyses properties ......................................................................................................... 19


i
Index

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

2.3.2.1 Calibration and check of buckling load prediction equations ......................................... 21

2.3.2.2 Validity of simplified elastic model ................................................................................ 25

2.3.2.3 Cyclic behavior................................................................................................................ 25

2.3.2.4 Plastic dissipation ............................................................................................................ 30

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

3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped with BDSP 34

3.1 Study outline ......................................................................................................................34

3.2 Plastic Wen nonlinear link property in SAP2000 ...........................................................35

3.2.1 Plastic hinges model ................................................................................................................. 37

3.2.2 BDSP modeling in SAP2000 .................................................................................................... 38

3.3 Upgrade of a 7-stories seismic designed MRF to larger accelerations .........................41

3.3.1 Frame model description .......................................................................................................... 41

3.3.1.1 Geometry ......................................................................................................................... 41

3.3.1.2 Loads and boundary conditions ....................................................................................... 42

3.3.2 Initial frame design by linear dynamic analysis ....................................................................... 44

3.3.3 Nonlinear analysis: Moment Resisting Frame .......................................................................... 45

3.3.3.1 Description ...................................................................................................................... 45

3.3.3.2 Results ............................................................................................................................. 48

3.3.4 Nonlinear analysis: BDSP braced frame .................................................................................. 61

3.3.4.1 Description ...................................................................................................................... 61

3.3.4.2 Results ............................................................................................................................. 63

3.3.5 Comparison between original and upgraded structure.............................................................. 69

3.4 Retrofit of a 6-stories non-seismic building .....................................................................72

3.4.1 Frame model description .......................................................................................................... 73

3.4.1.1 Geometry ......................................................................................................................... 73

3.4.1.2 Loads and boundary conditions ....................................................................................... 73

ii
Index

3.4.2 Nonlinear analysis: non-seismic structure ................................................................................ 74

3.4.2.1 Description ...................................................................................................................... 74

3.4.2.2 Results ............................................................................................................................. 75

3.4.3 Nonlinear analysis: BDSP braced frame .................................................................................. 79

3.4.3.1 Description ...................................................................................................................... 79

3.4.3.2 Results ............................................................................................................................. 81

3.4.4 Comparison between original and retrofitted structure ............................................................ 87

4. BDSP back-analysis in ABAQUS 89

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

Forces and displacements


: axial force in the braces
: lateral load
: critical lateral load

iv
Index

: load to cause buckling of the braces


: 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.

Il sistema composto da controventi concentrici a X collegati in serie ad un pannello a taglio


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

1.1 Current dissipative bracing systems

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) (b) (c) (d)

Fig. 1.1 - Existing dissipative bracing systems


(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.

1.2 BDSP bracing system

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-

Fig. 1.2 - Conceptual 3D sketch of the BDSP system

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-

1.3 Study outline

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

Expected ABAQUS SAP2000


performance analyses analyses

Displacements
time-history

Fig. 1.3 - Study outline and workflow

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

2. Design of the bracing system

2.1 Design process

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

2.2 Problem analysis and preliminary analytical models

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.

2.2.1 Linear elastic model

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.

Fig. 2.1 - Simplified elastic model

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

Fig. 2.2 - Equilibrium at the node

7
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

And then the equilibrium of the shear panel gives:

2 cos (2.3)

Fig. 2.3 - Equilibrium of the shear panel

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).

2.2.2 Elastic-plastic model

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.

2.2.2.1 Continuous moment frame connection

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)

2.2.2.2 Pinned frame connection

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. 2.7 - Deformed shape of the pin connected


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

2.2.2.3 Calculation of secant shear modulus Gsec

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:

Fig. 2.8 - Uniaxial and Shear stress-strain curves

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)

The associated monotonic tangential stress after yielding is:

with (2.9)

2.2.3 Elastic buckling

The two most critical buckling modes are:

out-of-plane buckling of compression braces around their weak axis;

11
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

shear buckling of the BDSP web.

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.

2.2.3.1 Global out-of-plane buckling

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.

Fig. 2.9 - Beam model of compression braces

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

Where is the brace warping stiffness and for an I-section is

1

24

The stiffness is calculated:

(2.10)

13
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

Fig. 2.10 - Out-of-plane buckling shape model

The stiffness of the rotational spring is defined as:

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.

The corresponding critical lateral load is:

2 cos (2.13)

14
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 2. Design of the bracing system

2.2.3.2 BDSP plate shear buckling

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.

Fig. 2.11 - Rectangular plate in pure shear

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

2.3 Finite Elements Analysis

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 FE model description

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.

Fig. 2.12 - ABAQUS model of the bracing system

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.

Fig. 2.13 - Stress-strain curve with nonlinear kinematic hardening

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

2.3.1.3 Loads and boundary conditions

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)

Fig. 2.15 - Different typologies of constrained nodes sets

2.3.1.4 Analyses properties

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

All the analyses shared the following features:

Nonlinear geometry and material model;


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

Fig. 2.16 - Imposed inter-story drift time-history

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 panel thickness ( ;


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).

Fig. 2.17 - Typical mesh of the FE model

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

2.3.2.1 Calibration and check of buckling load prediction equations

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 resulting coefficients are:

2.6 ; 1.0 ; 0.4

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. 2.18 - Braces dominated buckling: contour plot of out-of-plane displacement

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

Table 2.2 - Buckling loads parametric investigation


(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 10 B 8661.6 B 6308.2


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

2.3.2.2 Validity of simplified elastic model

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

(2.5) (2.18) (2.19)

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.

Frame BDSP ABAQUS Equations Difference %

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

5x3 1100x660 3 455.3 1.61 457.3 2.38 0.43% 47.7%


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%

Table 2.3 - Linear model verification

2.3.2.3 Cyclic behavior

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

3mm 4mm 6mm 8mm 10mm


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)

Fig. 2.20 - 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)

3mm 4mm 6mm 8mm 10mm


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

900 mm 1100 mm 1300 mm


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)

Fig. 2.22 - Force-Displacement plot for different BDSP widths b


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

900 mm 1100 mm 1300 mm


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

Fig. 2.23 - Normalized Force-Displacement plot for different BDSP widths b


(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

1.3 mm 2.5 mm 5.0 mm


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)

Fig. 2.24 - Force-Displacement plot for different initial imperfections amplitudes


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

2.3.2.4 Plastic dissipation

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)

Fig. 2.25 - Energy dissipation plot


(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:

where : for Mises plasticity.

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

Fig. 2.26 - PEEQ evolution under cyclic loading


(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

3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped with BDSP

3.1 Study outline

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:

drift control (maximum inter-story and total displacements);


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

3.2 Plastic Wen nonlinear link property in SAP2000

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.

Fig. 3.1 - Internal deformations for the two-joints link element

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

Four parameters are needed to define the nonlinear force-deformation curve:

the linear elastic stiffness ;


the yield force ;
the ratio of post-yielding stiffness ;
the yielding exponent .

The non linear force-deformation relationship is given by:

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

A parametric plot of the Wen model is drawn in Fig. 3.3.

36
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped
with BDSP

1
2

Fig. 3.3 - Definition of parameters for the Plastic Wen property

3.2.1 Plastic hinges model

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).

Fig. 3.4 - Implementation of nonlinear links as plastic hinges

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;

The yield value which corresponds to the yielding moment is:

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 post-elastic stiffness ratio is 0.001;

The yielding exponent is set to 4.00;

The length , which should correspond to the physical extension of the plastic hinge, is set
equal to the element cross-section depth.

3.2.2 BDSP modeling in SAP2000

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

Fig. 3.5 - Modeling of BDSP system with cross-bracing nonlinear links

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:

4 cos 4 sin cos

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

Fig. 3.6 - BDSP equivalent links system

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

And the resulting post-yield stiffness ratio is:

40
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped
with BDSP

3.3 Upgrade of a 7-stories seismic designed MRF to larger accelerations

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 Frame model description

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

Fig. 3.7 - Building elevation

3.3.1.2 Loads and boundary conditions

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

Dead load 4.00 /


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.

Fig. 3.8 - Static loads on the frame

Fig. 3.9 - Loads and masses influence areas

43
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped
with BDSP

3.3.2 Initial frame design by linear dynamic analysis

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.

Period Frequency Mass part.


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:

Peak ground acceleration 0.35


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)

Fig. 3.10 - Resulting design response spectrum (EC8 2004)

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 .

Fig. 3.11 - Designed cross-sections

3.3.3 Nonlinear analysis: Moment Resisting Frame

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.

The structure is dynamically excited by a ground acceleration time-history in x direction. The


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:

14.7 in the inner nodes;


7.35 in the outer nodes
since outer nodes only bear half bay-width loads.

Fig. 3.12 - MRF model: applied masses

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)

Fig. 3.13 - Normalized El Centro acceleration time-history

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)

IPE 300 54327 0 190.1

IPE 330 68800 0 240.8

IPE 360 87852 0 307.5

HE 320 B 188484 200 636.1

HE 320 B 188484 400 612.5

HE 320 B 188484 600 588.9

Table 3.2 - Nonlinear Wen link parameters

47
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped
with BDSP

Fig. 3.14 - Plastic hinges numbering

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

Fig. 3.15 - MRF model: nodal displacements envelope


(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)

Fig. 3.16 - MRF model: top displacements history - ag = 0.35g

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)

Fig. 3.17 - MRF model: top displacements history - ag = 0.6g

3.3.3.2.2 Base Shear

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)

Fig. 3.18 - MRF model: base shear - ag = 0.6g

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)

Fig. 3.19 - MRF model: base shear - ag = 0.35g

3.3.3.2.3 Energy dissipation and plastic hinges

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.

150 Modal Damping

Plastic Hinges
100 Kinetic En.

Potential En.
50

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time (s)

Fig. 3.20 - MRF model: energy balance - ag = 0.35g

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)

Fig. 3.21 - MRF model: energy balance - ag = 0.60g

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

Fig. 3.22 - MRF model: energy dissipation distribution

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

Link ID: Beam_01 Link ID: Beam_02 Link ID: Beam_03


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

Link ID: Beam_04 Link ID: Beam_05 Link ID: Beam_06


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

Link ID: Beam_07 Link ID: Beam_08 Link ID: Beam_09


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

Link ID: Beam_10 Link ID: Beam_11 Link ID: Beam_12


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

Table 3.3 - Plastic hinges moment-rotation plots - ag=0.60g


Page 1/6

54
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped
with BDSP

Link ID: Beam_13 Link ID: Beam_14 Link ID: Beam_15


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

Link ID: Beam_16 Link ID: Beam_17 Link ID: Beam_18


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

Link ID: Beam_19 Link ID: Beam_20 Link ID: Beam_21


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

Link ID: Beam_22 Link ID: Beam_23 Link ID: Beam_24


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

Table 3.3 - Plastic hinges moment-rotation plots - ag=0.60g


Page 2/6

55
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped
with BDSP

Link ID: Beam_25 Link ID: Beam_26 Link ID: Beam_27


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

Link ID: Beam_28 Link ID: Beam_29 Link ID: Beam_30


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

Link ID: Beam_31 Link ID: Beam_32 Link ID: Beam_33


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

Link ID: Beam_34 Link ID: Beam_35 Link ID: Beam_36


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

Table 3.3 - Plastic hinges moment-rotation plots - ag=0.60g


Page 3/6

56
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped
with BDSP

Link ID: Beam_37 Link ID: Beam_38 Link ID: Beam_39


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

Link ID: Beam_40 Link ID: Beam_41 Link ID: Beam_42


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

Link ID: Beam_43 Link ID: Beam_44 Link ID: Beam_45


300 300 300

200 200 200

100 100 100

0 0 0

-100 -100 -100

-200 -200 -200

-300 -300 -300


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

Link ID: Beam_46 Link ID: Beam_47 Link ID: Beam_48


300 300 300

200 200 200

100 100 100

0 0 0

-100 -100 -100

-200 -200 -200

-300 -300 -300


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

Table 3.3 - Plastic hinges moment-rotation plots - ag=0.60g


Page 4/6

57
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped
with BDSP

Link ID: Beam_49 Link ID: Beam_50 Link ID: Beam_51


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

Link ID: Beam_52 Link ID: Beam_53 Link ID: Beam_54


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

Link ID: Beam_55 Link ID: Beam_56 Link ID: Beam_57


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

Link ID: Beam_58 Link ID: Beam_59 Link ID: Beam_60


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

Table 3.3 - Plastic hinges moment-rotation plots - ag=0.60g


Page 5/6

58
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped
with BDSP

Link ID: Beam_61 Link ID: Beam_62 Link ID: Beam_63


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

Link ID: Beam_64 Link ID: Beam_65 Link ID: Beam_66


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

Link ID: Beam_67 Link ID: Beam_68 Link ID: Beam_69


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

Link ID: Beam_70


100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-0.02 0.00 0.02

Table 3.3 - Plastic hinges moment-rotation plots - ag=0.60g


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_01 2.911 Beam_37 3.748


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

Table 3.4 - Plastic hinges energy breakdown - ag=0.60g

60
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped
with BDSP

Fig. 3.23 - Plastic hinges: amount of dissipated energy

3.3.4 Nonlinear analysis: BDSP braced frame

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.

Period Mass part.


Mode Total part.
(s) UX

1 1.082 0.666 0.666


2 0.309 0.170 0.836
3 0.173 0.038 0.874

Table 3.5 - Upgraded structure: main modal periods

61
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped
with BDSP

Fig. 3.24 - Braced model: applied masses

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

0 200 400 600


Vy (kN)

Fig. 3.25 - Lateral yield load distribution

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.

In Fig. 3.28 the envelope of maximum absolute displacements at 0.60g is shown.

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)

Fig. 3.26 - Braced structure: top displacement - ag = 0.35g

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)

Fig. 3.27 - Braced structure: top displacement - ag = 0.60g

64
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped
with BDSP

Fig. 3.28 - Braced structure: nodal displacements envelope - ag=0.60g


(Scale factor 10, dimensions in m)

3.3.4.2.2 Base Shear

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)

Fig. 3.29 - Braced structure: base shear - ag = 0.35g

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)

Fig. 3.30 - Braced structure: base shear - ag = 0.6g

3.3.4.2.3 Energy dissipation and BDSP hysteresis

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

Fig. 3.31 - Braced structure: energy dissipation distribution

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)

1200 Input En.

1000 Modal Damping

800 BDSP

600 Kinetic En.

400 Potential En.

200
0
0 5 10 15 20
Time (s)

Fig. 3.32 - Braced structure: energy balance - ag = 0.6g

800

700

600
Energy (kNm)

500 Input En.

400 Modal Damping

BDSP
300
Kinetic En.
200
Potential En.
100

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time (s)

Fig. 3.33 - Braced structure: energy balance - ag = 0.35g

67
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped
with BDSP

600 600

400 Level 1 400 Level 2

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

400 Level 3 400 Level 4

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

400 Level 5 400 Level 6

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

Table 3.7 - BDSP force-displacement plots - ag=0.60g

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)

Fig. 3.34 - BDSP-link hysteresis at different ag

3.3.5 Comparison between original and upgraded structure

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

Fig. 3.35 - Maximum base shear comparison

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

Max. top displacement (cm) 40


41.5
27.4
30 MRF

20
8.3 20.2 BDSP
10

0
0.35g 0.60g
Peak acceleration

Fig. 3.36 - Maximum absolute top displacement comparison

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.

BDSP MRF BDSP MRF

7 7
6 6
5 5
Level
Level

4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1

0 2.5 5 7.5 0 2.5 5 7.5 10


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

Fig. 3.39 - Energy dissipation comparison

71
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped
with BDSP

3.4 Retrofit of a 6-stories non-seismic building

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.

Fig. 3.40 - Original frame structure and cross-sections (m)

72
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped
with BDSP

3.4.1 Frame model description

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 .

3.4.1.2 Loads and boundary conditions

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

The load patterns considered are the same as in 3.3.1.2:

Dead load 4.00 /


Live load 2.00 /

And the combination too:

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 Nonlinear analysis: non-seismic structure

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)

IPE400 115650 0 318.0


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

Table 3.8 - Nonlinear Wen link parameters for plastic hinges

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.

Period Mass part.


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

Table 3.9 - Original structure: main modal periods

74
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped
with BDSP

Fig. 3.42 - Original structure: applied masses

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)

Fig. 3.43 - Non-seismic structure: top displacement

3.4.2.2.2 Base shear

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)

Fig. 3.44 - Non-seismic structure: base shear

76
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped
with BDSP

3.4.2.2.3 Energy dissipation

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)

Fig. 3.45 - Non-seismic structure: energy balance - ag=0.20g

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)

Fig. 3.46 - Non-seismic structure: energy balance - ag=0.35g

300

250
Energy (kNm)

200
Input En.

150 Modal Damping

Plastic Hinges
100 Kinetic En.

Potential En.
50

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time (s)

Fig. 3.47 - Non-seismic structure: energy balance - ag=0.60g

3.4.2.2.4 Seismic response of the structure

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 Nonlinear analysis: BDSP braced frame

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

Period Mass part.


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

Table 3.11 - Retrofitted structure: main modal periods

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.

Fig. 3.48 - Retrofitted structure: Applied masses and device numbering

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)

Fig. 3.49 - Lateral yield load distribution

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)

Fig. 3.50 - Retrofitted frame: top displacements

81
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped
with BDSP

3.4.3.2.2 Base shear

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)

3.4.3.2.3 Energy dissipation and BDSP hysteresis

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)

Fig. 3.51 - Retrofitted structure: energy balance - ag=0.20g

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)

Fig. 3.52 - Retrofitted structure: energy balance - ag=0.35g

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

250 Input En.

200 Modal Damping

150 Potential En.

100 BDSP

50

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time (s)

Fig. 3.53 - Retrofitted structure: energy balance - ag=0.60g

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

Table 3.12 - BDSP force-displacement plots - ag=0.60g

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)

Fig. 3.54 - BDSP-link hystersis at different ag

86
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 3. Analysis of steel buildings equipped
with BDSP

3.4.4 Comparison between original and retrofitted structure

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.

BDSP MRF BDSP MRF

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)

Fig. 3.57 - Retrofitted frame: inter-story drift at different peak accelerations

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

Max. top displacement (cm)


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

Fig. 3.58 - Top displacement comparison

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

Fig. 3.59 - Base shear comparison

88
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 4. BDSP back-analysis in ABAQUS

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)

Fig. 4.1 - Lateral drift time-history

The dimensions of the considered BDSP and frame in SAP2000 are:

Braces
(m) (mm) (mm)

6.0 x 3.5 1000 x 583 4.0 HE 280 A

Table 4.1 - BDSP and frame dimensions

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

Fig. 4.2 - ABAQUS model of the considered frame

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)

Fig. 4.3 - Superposition of force-displacement plots

91
Braced Ductile Shear Panel: a new dissipative seismic resistant framing system 4. BDSP back-analysis in ABAQUS

Fig. 4.4 - PEEQ contour plot at the end of the analysis

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)

[2] Corradi Dell'Acqua, L.: Meccanica delle strutture I,II,III. McGraw-Hill

[3] Cofie, N., Krawinkler, H.: Uniaxial cyclic stress-strain behavior of structural steel. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics 111(9) (September 1985)

[4] EN-1993: Eurocode 3 - Design of steel structures. (2004)

[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