Introducing and Study of Seismic Performance of Lateral Resisting System, Shear Resisting Frames (SRFs) with Haunched Beam

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
P. Ashtari 1
M. Rahnemoun 2
1 Associate professor of civil engineering, department of civil engineering, university of Zanjan
2 P.h D candidate of civil engineering, department of civil engineering, university of Zanjan
Abstract
Nowadays, building structures encounter with challenges such as construction speed and cost, especially in high seismicity zones. To accomplish this, steel structures was developed to accelerate the construction process and other economic issues. According to high strength ductility and energy dissipation, steel structure systems have been used widely in active seismic regions. The idea of application of shear panels has been using from many years ago as systems with high energy dissipation capability in EBFs as link beams and steel shear walls. The purpose of the EBFs design is the yielding of link beam and remaining the adjacent member at elastic region. According to the available criteria in design codes, shear in beams is a force-controlled action that exceeding the specified value as nominal strength is not permissible and the capacity design theory should be considered. Increasing the web thickness is the main effective factor achieving the needed shear strength and leads to the enhancement of plastic flexural capacity. The result of this action is more seismic demands in other structural members to keep in desirable operational level. So the shear plastic hinges is introduced instead of flexural plastic hinges at both ends. At this case because of uniform shear yielding through the web, energy dissipation capability is much better than the flexural yielding which begins from the outer face of the beam located on flanges. The web panels of built-up sections restrained by top and bottom flanges and two-sided transverse stiffeners have the ability to carry further loading beyond the web buckling load. The small lateral web displacements produced by excessive loading are not substantial because of available components to supply more resistance. Using adequate stiff transverse to resist against the out-of-plane deformation resulted from post-buckling; tension field actions are developed in shear panels before reaching the maximum shear strength by forming a truss with tension diagonals and compression verticals fixed by stiffeners.

The concept of shear resisting frames with non-prismatic beams were presented with the scope of reduction in link beam rotation, elimination of architectural limitations, restrictions on the ratio of span free length to beam total depth and high energy dissipation capacity. Shear yielding and out of plane deformations caused by tension action field mainly control the frame behavior and energy dissipation. The proposed system is made up two strong side columns connected to the link element with weaker section in the middle of the frame as shear fuse with non-prismatic beams. Tendency to use haunched beams makes it feasible to achieve any link length ratio especially less than 1.0. This paper presents the introducing, design and performance of 1-story-shear resisting frames with different link length ratios (ranges from 0.5 to 1.6 with 0.1 variations) and shear-controlled behavior. The goal is achieved by implementing pushover and cyclic analyses numerically with ABAQUS software. But at first a verification analysis is done to validate the modeling procedure and reach a good conformity between numerical and experimental results. The outputs are presented in the form of response modification factor, displacement ductility and overstrength factor for pushover analyses and hysteresis behavior, backbone curve, energy dissipation capability and overstrength factor for cyclic analysis. Also at the end, 3, 5 and 7-story-frames were studied through pushover analysis and values of response modification factor and overstrength factor of the total frames presented. The results indicate desirable behavior of 1-story-shear resisting frames from the point of stiffness and strength degradation with high values of response modification factor equal to 9.18.

Keywords

Subjects

[1] Alinia M. M & Dastfan M. 2007 Cyclic behaviour, deformability and rigidity of stiffened steel shear panels. Constructional Steel Research, 63, 554–563.
[2] Sabouri Ghomi S. Ventura C. E. & Kharrazi M. H. K 2005 Shear analysis and design of ductile steel plate walls. Structural Engineering, 131(6), 878–889.
[3] Nakashima M. 1995 Strain hardening behavior of shear panels made of low-yield steel, Structural Engineering, 121(12), 1742-1749
[4] Brando G. & Matteis G. D. 2011 Experimental and numerical analysis of a multi-stiffened pure aluminum shear panel. Thin-Walled Structures, 49(10), 1277–1287.
[5] Brando G., D'Agostino F. & Matteis G. D. 2013 Experimental tests of a new hysteretic damper made of buckling inhibited shear panels. Material and structures, 46(12), 2121–2133.
[6] Mohebkhah A. & Chegeni B. 2004 Overstrength and rotation capacity for EBF links made of European IPE sections, Thin-Walled Structures, 74, 255-260.
[7] Zahrai S.M. 2015 Cyclic testing of chevron braced steel frames with IPE shear panels, Steel and Composite Structures, 19(5), 1167-1184.
[8] Ji X., Wang Y., Ma Q. & Okazaki T. 2016 Cyclic behavior of very short steel shear links, Structural Engineering, 142(2), 04015114.
[9] Ji X., Wang Y. Ma Q. and Okazaki T. 2017 Cyclic behavior of replaceable steel coupling beams, structural Engineering, 143(2), 04016169.
[10] Gholhaki M. & Ghadaksaz M. B. 2016 Investigation of the link beam length of a coupled steel plate shear wall, Steel and Composite Structures, 20(1), 000-00.
[11] Bandehzadeh M. 2009 Evaluation of Nonlinear Behavior of Steel Buildings Using deep beams as the lateral resistant system: T-Braced Frame, M.Sc Dissertation, Zanjan University, Zanjan, Iran.
[12] Bandehzadeh M. & Ashtari P. 2015 T-Resisting Frame Concept: Headway toward Seismic Performance Improvement of Steel Frames, Constructional Steel Research, 104, 193-205.
[13] Ashtari P. and Gorzin M. 2011, Seismic Behavior of Innovative T-Shape Resistant System, Proceeding of the 6th National Congress on Seismology and Earthquake Engineering (SEE6), Tehran, Iran, May.
[14] Ashtari P. & Ghasemi M. 2011 Seismic Characteristics of a T-Shape Resistant System, Proceeding of the 6th National Congress on Civil Engineering (6NCCE), Semnan, April.
[15] Ashtari P., Rasouli I. & Barzegar sediq H. 2012, Seismic Behavior of T-Shape Resistant Frame (TRF) with Different Shapes of Link Beams, Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, September.
[16] Barzegar Sedigh H. 2013, Invastigation of seismic behavior of T Resistant Frame (TRF) with link beams having shear or moment yielding, M.Sc. Dissertation, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran.
[17] Nikoukalam M.T. & Dolatshahi K.M. 2015 Development of Structural Shear Fuse in Moment Resisting Frames, Constructional Steel Research, 114, 349-361.
[18] ANSI/AISC341-10, 2010 Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
[19] Mahmoudi F., Dolatshahi K. M., Mahsuli M., Shahmohammadi A. and Nikoukalam M. T. 2016 Experimental evaluation of steel moment resisting frames with a nonlinear shear fuse, Proceeding of the geotechnical and structural engineering congress, Phoenix, Arizona, February.
[20] Ashtari, P., Barzegar Sedigh, H. and Hamedi, F. 2016, “Experimental and Numerical Study on Innovative Seismic T-Resisting Frame (TRF)”, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 60(2), 251-269.
[21] Mahmoudi F., Dolatshahi K. M., Mahsuli M., Nikoukalam M. & Shahmohammadi A. 2019 Experimental Study of Steel Moment Resisting Frames with Shear Link, Constructional Steel Research, 154, 197-208.
[22] AISC341-16, 2016, Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
[23] Engelhardt M. & Popov E. 1989 On design of eccentrically braced frames, Earthquake Spectra, 5 (3), 495–511.
[24] Standard No. 2800, Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings, 4th edition (In Persian).
[25] ASCE/SEI 7-16. 2016 Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures American society of civil engineers, Structural Engineering Institute.
[26] Kaufmann E. J., Metrovich B. & Pense A.W. 2001 Characterization of Cyclic Inelastic Strain Behavior on Properties of A572 Gr. 50 and A913 Gr. 50 Rolled Sections, ATLSS Rep. No. 01–13, National Center for Engineering Research on Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pa.
[27] SIMULIA, Abaqus Analysis User's Manual, version 6.11. SIMULIA, The Dassault Systemes, Realistic Simulation, USA, 2011.
[28] ATC-19. 1995 Structural Response Modifi cation Factors. Applied Technology Council: Redwood City, CA.
[29] Uang, C. M. 1991 Establishing R (or Rw) and Cd factors for building Seismic Provisions, Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, 117(1), 19-28.
Modares Civil Engineering journal
Volume 21, Issue 3
May and June 2021
Pages 75-90