The influence of beam stiffness on seismic response of chevron concentric bracings

Abstract The seismic response of steel chevron concentric bracings is significantly influenced by the flexural behaviour of the brace-intercepted beam. The capacity design criteria provided by current codes aim both at avoiding the formation of plastic hinge into the beam following the brace buckling and at guaranteeing the energy dissipation by yielding in tension of the brace. However, besides the strength, the beam flexural stiffness has a key role in order to assure the formation of such failure mechanism. Indeed, structures with strong and deformable beams are characterized by poor seismic performance, showing severe damage concentration in the braces under compression, while those in tension behave elastically. In order to investigate this aspect, a comprehensive numerical parametric study is presented and described in this paper. In particular, the influence of beam flexural stiffness on chevron concentric bracings is analysed ranging the ratio between the beam flexural stiffness and the braces vertical rigidity, the beam span, the interstorey height and the brace slenderness. Analytical equations based on the regression of numerical data have been proposed as design aid in order to select the optimal beam stiffness depending on both the required brace ductility and interstorey drift ratio.

[1]  F. Mazzolani,et al.  PLASTIC DESIGN OF SEISMIC RESISTANT STEEL FRAMES , 1997 .

[2]  Raffaele Landolfo,et al.  The influence of out‐of‐straightness imperfection in physical theory models of bracing members on seismic performance assessment of concentric braced structures , 2015 .

[3]  Gaetano Della Corte,et al.  Development of a Displacement-Based Design Method for Steel Dual Systems With Buckling-Restrained Braces and Moment-Resisting Frames , 2010 .

[4]  Luciano R. O. de Lima,et al.  Seismic performance of dual-steel moment resisting frames , 2014 .

[5]  L. Luzi,et al.  Reference database for seismic ground-motion in Europe (RESORCE) , 2014, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[6]  Federico M. Mazzolani,et al.  Displacement-based seismic design of braced steel structures , 2010 .

[7]  Dan Dubina,et al.  Dual high‐strength steel eccentrically braced frames with removable links , 2008 .

[8]  Mitsumasa Midorikawa,et al.  Seismic Behavior of Full‐Scale Concentrically Braced Steel Building Structure , 1989 .

[9]  Luís Simões da Silva,et al.  Design of Steel Structures: Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings , 2010 .

[10]  Robert Tremblay,et al.  Seismic performance of low- and medium-rise chevron braced steel frames , 2001 .

[11]  M. Menegotto.  Method of Analysis for Cyclically Loaded R. C. Plane Frames Including Changes in Geometry and Non-Elastic Behavior of Elements under Combined Normal Force and Bending , 1973 .

[12]  Robert Tremblay,et al.  Seismic design of low- and medium-rise chevron braced steel frames , 2000 .

[13]  Jostein Hellesland.  Mechanics and effective lengths of columns with positive and negative end restraints , 2007 .

[14]  Edoardo M. Marino.  A unified approach for the design of high ductility steel frames with concentric braces in the framework of Eurocode 8 , 2014 .

[15]  Chanakya Arya,et al.  Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures , 2018, Design of Structural Elements.

[16]  Bulent Akbas,et al.  Seismic demand on brace-intersected beams in two-story X-braced frames , 2014 .

[17]  Bulent Akbas,et al.  Mechanisms in two-story X-braced frames , 2015 .

[18]  Dimitrios G. Lignos,et al.  Dynamic Response of a Chevron Concentrically Braced Frame , 2013 .

[19]  Ashok Kumar Jain,et al.  Hysteresis Behavior Of Bracing Members And Seismic Response Of Braced Frames With Different Proportions. , 1978 .

[20]  Dan Dubina,et al.  DUAL-STEEL FRAMES FOR MULTISTORY BUILDINGS IN SEISMIC AREAS , 2010 .

[21]  Edoardo M. Marino,et al.  Seismic performance and new design procedure for chevron-braced frames , 2006 .

[22]  Vincenzo Piluso,et al.  Seismic reliability of traditional and innovative concentrically braced frames , 2011 .

[23]  A. Y. Elghazouli,et al.  Behaviour of tubular steel members under cyclic axial loading , 2006 .

[24]  Minoru Wakabayashi,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON THE HYSTERETIC BEHAVIOR OF K-TYPE BRACED FRAME SUBJECTED TO REPEATED LOAD , 1983 .

[25]  Murat Dicleli,et al.  Physical Theory Hysteretic Model for Steel Braces , 2008 .

[26]  Ben Kato,et al.  Seismic Performance of Steel Frames with Inverted V Braces , 1989 .

[27]  Vincenzo Piluso,et al.  Plastic Design of Seismic Resistant V-Braced Frames , 2008 .

[28]  F. Filippou,et al.  Mixed formulation of nonlinear beam finite element , 1996 .

[29]  Mario D'Aniello,et al.  Seismic behaviour of dual steel concentric braced frames , 2011 .

[30]  Francisco Virtuoso,et al.  Nonlinear Analysis of Space Frames , 2006 .

[31]  R. Landolfo.  Assessment of EC8 provisions for seismic design of steel structures , 2013 .

[32]  Robert Tremblay,et al.  Inelastic seismic response of steel bracing members , 2002 .

[33]  R. Landolfo,et al.  Modelling aspects of the seismic response of steel concentric braced frames , 2013 .

[34]  Vincenzo Piluso,et al.  Failure Mode Control of X-Braced Frames Under Seismic Actions , 2008 .

[35]  Michel Bruneau,et al.  Energy Dissipation of Compression Members in Concentrically Braced Frames: Review of Experimental Data , 2005, Journal of Structural Engineering.

[36]  Vincenzo Piluso,et al.  PLASTIC DESIGN OF CB-FRAMES WITH REDUCED SECTION SOLUTION FOR BRACING MEMBERS , 2010 .

[37]  Kiyohiro Ikeda,et al.  Cyclic Response of Steel Braces , 1986 .