Assessment of European seismic design procedures for steel framed structures

This paper assesses the fundamental approaches and main procedures adopted in the seismic design of steel frames, with emphasis on the provisions of Eurocode 8. The study covers moment-resisting as well as concentrically-braced frame configurations. Code requirements in terms of design concepts, behaviour factors, ductility considerations and capacity design verifications, are examined. The rationality and clarity of the design principles employed in Eurocode 8, especially those related to the explicit definitions of dissipative and non dissipative zones and associated capacity design criteria, are highlighted. Various requirements that differ notably from the provisions of other seismic codes are also pointed out. More importantly, several issues that can lead to unintentional departure from performance objectives or to impractical solutions, as a consequence of inherent assumptions or possible misinterpretations, are identified and a number of clarifications and modifications suggested. In particular, it is shown that the implications of stability and drift requirements as well as some capacity design checks in moment frames, together with the treatment of post-buckling response and the distribution of inelastic demand in braced frames, are areas that merit careful consideration within the design process.

[1]  José Miguel Castro,et al.  Seismic Design Approaches for Panel Zones in Steel Moment Frames , 2008 .

[2]  Subhash C. Goel,et al.  CYCLIC LOAD BEHAVIOR OF ANGLE X-BRACING , 1986 .

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

[4]  E. Gaylord,et al.  Design of Steel Structures , 1972 .

[5]  Egor P. Popov,et al.  Steel Struts under Severe Cyclic Loadings , 1981 .

[6]  Egor P. Popov,et al.  Cyclic Response Prediction for Braced Steel Frames , 1980 .

[7]  Ronald O. Hamburger,et al.  Prequalified Connections for Special and Intermediate Steel Moment Frames for Seismic Applications, ANSI/AISC 358-05 , 2006 .

[8]  B. Riley,et al.  EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY , 2009 .

[9]  A. Y. Elghazouli,et al.  Seismic design procedures for concentrically braced frames , 2003 .

[10]  A. Y. Elghazouli,et al.  Shake table testing of tubular steel bracing members , 2005 .

[11]  I. Towhata Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering , 2008 .

[12]  Akshay Gupta,et al.  Dynamic P-Delta Effects for Flexible Inelastic Steel Structures , 2000 .

[13]  Alexander Remennikov,et al.  A note on compression strength reduction factor for a buckled strut in seismic-resisting braced system , 1998 .

[14]  A. Y. Elghazouli,et al.  Cyclic performance of steel and composite bracing members , 2005 .

[15]  Dawn E. Lehman,et al.  Analytical Performance Simulation of Special Concentrically Braced Frames , 2008 .

[16]  José Miguel Castro,et al.  Modelling of the panel zone in steel and composite moment frames , 2005 .

[17]  Vitelmo V. Bertero,et al.  Performance of steel building structures during the Northridge Earthquake , 1994 .

[18]  N. Null Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures , 2003 .

[19]  André Plumier,et al.  Parametric study of ductile moment‐resisting steel frames: A first step towards Eurocode 8 calibration , 2008 .

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

[21]  Dawn E. Lehman,et al.  Improved Seismic Performance of Gusset Plate Connections , 2008 .

[22]  Ahmed Y. Elghazouli,et al.  EARTHQUAKE TESTING AND RESPONSE ANALYSIS OF CONCENTRICALLY-BRACED SUB-FRAMES , 2008 .