Steel moment resisting frames with both joint and beam dissipation zones

Abstract Normally, the design of steel moment resisting frames in seismic areas encourages the formation of plastic zones in the beams. This paper investigates numerically the performance of moment resisting frames designed to dissipate hysteretic energy in joints and beams together. Joints can be a stable source of hysteresis, provided they are designed with ductility requirements. The commonly used bolted end-plate connection is adopted here. In order to provide spacing between the expected plastic zones in the connection and the beam, a reinforcement scheme with cover plates is employed. Appropriate methodologies are provided for the design of connections and cover plates. The proposed joint and beam dissipative frames are evaluated through parametric push-over and time-history analyses. Comparison is performed with frames designed with rigid joints that dissipate energy mainly in beams. The results show that the proposed frames not only don’t suffer in terms of drifts or capacity, due to the added joint flexibility but they provide superior performance in many aspects, while they can offer economical advantages, due to their reduced bending moment requirements.

[1]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  Seismic Performance of Semirigid Moment-Resisting Frames under Far and Near Field Records , 2012 .

[2]  Douglas A. Foutch,et al.  Modeling of steel moment frames for seismic loads , 2002 .

[3]  Riccardo Zandonini,et al.  Experimental analysis and modelling of semi-rigid steel joints under cyclic reversal loading , 1996 .

[4]  W. J. Hall,et al.  Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings , 2000 .

[5]  Amir Saedi Daryan,et al.  Cyclic behavior of bolted connections with different arrangement of bolts , 2011 .

[6]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  Seismic behaviour of semi-rigid steel frames , 1994 .

[7]  Marija Nefovska-Danilović,et al.  Contribution to transient analysis of inelastic steel frames with semi-rigid connections , 2008 .

[8]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  RESPONSE OF SEMIRIGID STEEL FRAMES TO CYCLIC AND EARTHQUAKE LOADS , 1998 .

[10]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  The design and seismic performance of low-rise long-span frames with semi-rigid connections , 2011 .

[11]  Helmut Krawinkler,et al.  Seismic Demand Evaluation for a 4‐Story Steel Frame Structure Damaged in the Northridge Earthquake , 1996 .

[12]  Gang Shi,et al.  Numerical study on seismic behaviors of steel frame end-plate connections , 2013 .

[13]  Vitelmo V. Bertero,et al.  Cover-Plate and Flange-Plate Steel Moment-Resisting Connections , 2002 .

[14]  Vincenzo Piluso,et al.  Influence of Connection Typology on the Seismic Behaviour of MR-Frames , 2013 .

[15]  Adrian Ciutina,et al.  CYCLIC TESTS OF DOUBLE-SIDED BEAM-TO-COLUMN JOINTS , 2001 .

[16]  Marwan N. Nader,et al.  Shaking Table Tests of Rigid, Semirigid, and Flexible Steel Frames , 1996 .

[17]  Siu Lai Chan Vibration and modal analysis of steel frames with semi-rigid connections , 1994 .

[18]  Charles W. Roeder Connection Performance for Seismic Design of Steel Moment Frames , 2002 .

[19]  Behrokh Hosseini Hashemi,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF COVER PLATE AND FLANGE PLATE STEEL MOMENT-RESISTING CONNECTIONS CONSIDERING UNEQUAL BEAM DEPTHS , 2010 .

[20]  Mahendra P. Singh,et al.  Seismic response of structural frameworks with flexible connections , 1996 .

[21]  Federico M. Mazzolani,et al.  Seismic analysis of MR steel frames based on refined hysteretic models of connections , 2002 .

[22]  Carlos Rebelo,et al.  MODELLING CONNECTIONS OF MOMENT RESISTING STEEL FRAMES FOR SEISMIC ANALYSIS , 2010 .

[23]  Masayoshi Nakashima,et al.  Seismic resistance capacity of beam–column connections in high‐rise buildings: E‐Defense shaking table test , 2011 .

[24]  Gang Shi,et al.  Behaviour of end-plate moment connections under earthquake loading , 2007 .

[25]  Cüneyt Vatansever,et al.  Cyclic behavior and numerical modelling of a semi-rigid frame , 2010 .

[26]  Egor P. Popov,et al.  Design of steel MRF connections before and after 1994 Northridge earthquake , 1998 .

[27]  André Plumier,et al.  Behaviour of connections , 1994 .

[28]  Blaž Čermelj,et al.  Cyclic behaviour of welded stiffened beam‐to‐column joints – experimental tests , 2014 .

[29]  Chang Liu,et al.  Component-based steel beam–column connections modelling for dynamic progressive collapse analysis , 2015 .

[30]  Michael D. Engelhardt,et al.  Reinforcing of steel moment connections with cover plates: benefits and limitations , 1998 .

[31]  Lorenzo Macorini,et al.  Seismic response of steel frames under repeated earthquake ground motions , 2004 .

[32]  W. J. Hall,et al.  Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings , 2001 .

[33]  Sheng-Jin Chen,et al.  Ductile Steel Beam-to-Column Connections for Seismic Resistance , 1996 .

[34]  Miodrag Sekulovic,et al.  Dynamic analysis of steel frames with flexible connections , 2002 .

[35]  Gian A. Rassati,et al.  Seismic response of MRFs with partially-restrained bolted beam-to-column connections through FE analyses , 2015 .