Professional Documents
Culture Documents
R
ASCE/SEI 7-10
3-1/2
4-1/2
8
7
3-1/4
6
8
Plan
Ductile seismic design
Braced frame systems
Concentrically braced frames
Eccentrically braced frames 341-10
Buckling restrained braced frames
1.5
1.28 W
1.0
1.0
V/W
V/W
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.0
-1.5
0.0126 h
/ h (%)
0.0
-1.0
W
T = 0.38 s
5% damping
1.0
/ h (%)
0.0
-0.5
-1.5
Elastic
0.5
0.5
Horizontal 90 deg.
h
ag (g)
0.0
-0.5
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
Time (s)
Ductile
response
Fu
Fy
Fracture,
instability,
etc.
1.0
1.0
V/W
0.33 W
0.5
V/W
0.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-0.5
-1.0
-1.0
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Vy = 0.25 W
1.0
/ h (%)
/ h (%)
0.0
-1.0
-0.017 h
1.5
1.5
1.28 W
1.0
1.0
V/W
V/W
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.0
-1.5
0.0126 h
1.0
/ h (%)
0.0
-0.5
-1.5
Elastic
0.5
/ h (%)
0.0
-1.0
W
T = 0.38 s
5% damping
0.5
Horizontal 90 deg.
h ag (g)
0.0
-0.5
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
Time (s)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada
10
M. Englehardt
1.5
1.0
M / Mpr
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
11
Inelastic buckling
with plastic hinge (typ.)
Tension
yielding (typ.)
1.2
0.8
0.4
Plastic
Hinge
P / Py
P
P+
0.0
-0.4
-0.8
HSS 102x76x6.4 - KL/r = 112
-1.2
-8
-4
/ y
12
0.4
0.2
0.2
V/W
V/W
0.4
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
Vy = 0.25 W
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.36 W
0.018 h
/ h (%)
1.0
/ h (%)
0.0
-1.0
0.33 W
0.4
0.4
V/W
h
Vy = 0.25 W
V/W
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.4
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
1.0
/ h (%)
/ h (%)
0.0
-1.0
-0.017 h
0.5
Horizontal 90 deg.
T = 0.38 s
5% damping
ag (g)
0.0
-0.5
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
Time (s)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada
13
2.5
1.5
M 7.0-7.5
10-20 km
1.5
S a (g)
Sa (g)
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.0
2.0
M 7.0-7.5
30-50 km
1.0
0.5
0.0
Period, T (s)
Period, T (s)
M 6.5-7.0
10-20 km
Sa (g)
0.8
1.0
0.4
0.0
M 6.5-7.0
30-50 km
1.0
S a (g)
1.2
0.5
0.0
M 6.5-7.0
70-100 km
0.5
0.0
Period, T (s)
Period, T (s)
Period, T (s)
1.0
Sa (g)
S a (g)
1.6
0.5
M 6.0-6.5
30-50 km
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period, T (s)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada
14
Design Spectra
& Design for Inelastic Response
2.0
1.6
Los Angeles Area
Site Class B
1.2
Sa (g), Cs
Sa (g)
1.6
M6.0 - M7.5
Dist. = 10-100 km
0.8
0.4
1.2
Sa (Elastic)
Cs (OCBF - R = 6.0)
0.8
x 1/R
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Period, T (s)
2.5
3.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Period, T (s)
15
16
Poutrelle
(typ.)
Poutre de toit
(typ.)
Feui lle de
tabl ier mtall ique
typ.)
Perimeter
members
Contr eventement
(typ.)
17
Ve
R
Brace
connections Foundations
Poteau
(typ.)
V
Roof
Diaphragm
Bracing
members
Anchor rods
18
Grav.
E
1. Select Braces:
Design for gravity + E
Check KL/r, b/t, etc. for ductile
response
2. Design other elements :
Grav.
Grav.
>E
Cu
>E
Grav.
C'u
Grav.
Ty
19
Plastic
Hinge
Plastic
Hinge (typ.)
Compression
yielding
Tension
yielding
Plastic
Hinge
Plastic
Hinge (typ.)
Shear
yielding
Shear
yielding
Plastic
Hinge (typ.)
Tension
yielding
End-plate
Bending
20
10
ASCE 7-10
AISC 341-10
AISC 360-10
21
NBCC 2010
CSA S16-09
22
11
23
24
Control of
Local Buckling
12
Expected (probable)
material strength
25
Inelastic buckling
with plastic hinge (typ.)
26
13
27
28
14
29
30
15
Rehabilitation
31
32
Kobe 1995
16
33
Northridge 1994
Photos from Peter Maranian, Brandow and Associates (P. Uriz Thesis, 2005)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada
34
17
Fracture in
1st cycle at
1 2% hs
1
2
Uriz and Mahin (2004)
Univ. of California, Berkeley
35
/ hs (%)
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.2
P / A gF y
0.8
0.4
0.0
-0.4
-0.8
-1.2
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
/ LH (%)
1.0
1.5
2.0
36
18
37
38
19
/ h s (%)
P / Py
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
/ hs (%)
1.0
2.0
3.0
-3.0
-2.0
0.0
/ hs (%)
1.0
2.0
3.0
-3.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
RHS-4
KL/r = 40
b0/t = 17
-0.8
-1.2
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
/ LH (%)
1.0
1.5
RHS-2
KL/r = 40
b0/t = 13
-0.8
-1.2
2.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
/ LH (%)
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
CHS-1
KL/r = 42
b0/t = 30
-0.5
0.0
0.5
/ LH (%)
-1.5
-4.0
0.4
-1.2
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
3.0
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
CHS-2
KL/r = 62
b 0/t = 31
-0.8
-1.2
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
/ L H (%)
0.5
/ LH (%)
1.0
1.5
2.0
/ hs (%)
1.0
0.8
-0.8
1.0
RHS-19
KL/r = 60
b 0/t = 13
-2.0
1.2
-1.0
0.0
/ hs (%)
1.2
-1.5
-1.0
-0.8
1.2
-2.0
-2.0
-1.2
/ hs (%)
P / Py
-1.0
39
1.0
1.5
2.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
W-6
KL/r = 67
b0/t = 5.9
-0.8
-1.2
-3.0
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
/ LH (%)
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
40
20
1.2
0.4
0.0
-0.4
-0.8
-1.2
KL/r = 42
HSS 254x254x12
-6
-4
-2
KL/r = 93
HSS 127x76x4.8
2
-6
-4
-2
KL/r = 142
HSS 76x76x4.8
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
Ductility at Fracture, f
P / AgFy
0.8
10
25
20
15
f = 2.4 + 8.3
10
5
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
41
42
21
43
W6
W4
6000
P (kN)
4000
2000
0
3
2000
4000
6000
W4W6
44
22
45
46
23
47
LH
KLout 0.9 LH
KLin 0.5 LN
KLout 0.5 LH
KLin 0.5 LN
48
24
Bracing Configuration
Tension-only braced frames permitted
Bracing Members
Section must meets b/t limits that vary with KL/r
49
P / Py
Texp
Cexp
Cexp
50
25
1.0
0.8
Cu (S16-01, n = 1.34)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1.2
Cu (S16-01, n = 1.34)
Cu (AISC 1999)
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
50
100
150
1.0
2.0
2.5
Cu (S16-01, n = 1.34)
C'u (mean)
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1.0
0.8
Cu (S16-01, n = 1.34)
C'u (mean)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.5
1.0
200
KL/r
1.5
0.6
0.0
0.5
0.8
0.0
0.6
Cu / AgF y
1.0
0.0
1.0
50
1.5
100
2.0
150
2.5
200
KL/r
51
Texp
Cexp
Texp = A RyFy
Cexp
52
26
Texp = A RyFy
Cexp = A (1.12 Fcr) ,Fcre = Fcr with RyFy
< A RyFy
Cexp = 0.3 Cexp
53
54
27
55
56
28
Kobe 1995
57
58
29
59
60
30
61
62
Kobe
1995
31
Sabelli (2003)
Sabelli (2003)
Sabelli (2005)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada
Prototype
63
Test Specimen
L
C-C
TS
2t
2t
35O
Attachment to
load frame:
Gusset
plate
Cover
plate
Cover
plate
Specimen
End Restraint
35
End
Hinge
Gusset
plate
290
102
Side View
Elevation
64
32
65
66
33
F3
F3
Texp,3
Cexp,3
F2
Cexp,3
F2
Texp,2
F1
F3
Texp,3
F2
Cexp,2
F1
Texp,2
Cexp,2
F1
Texp,1
C exp,1
At Buckling
Texp,1
Cexp,1
Post-Buckling
67
68
Northridge 1994
Photos from Finley 1999
(P. Uriz Thesis, 2005)
34
Taiwan 1999
69
70
35
Cexp,x+1
1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L
Cexp,x+1
Texp,x+1
FL,x
Texp,x
Cexp,x
Cexp,x
1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L
Cexp,x+1
Texp,x+1
FL,x
Cexp,x+1
FL,x
FR,x
Cexp,x
FR,x
Texp,x
Texp,x+1
Texp,x+1
FL,x
FR,x
FR,x
Cexp,x
Texp,x
At Buckling
Texp,x
Post-Buckling
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada
71
5 @ 9000 = 45 000
300
(slab edge)
BF (typ.)
EBF
BRBF
2 @ 4000
= 8000
MRF (typ.)
5 @ 9000 = 45 000
SCBF
5500
ELEVATIONS
PLAN
Gravity loads:
Roof: Dead = 3.2 kPa
Live = 1.0 kPa
Floor: Dead = 3.5 kPa
Partitions = 1.0 kPa
Live = 3.8 kPa
Exterior walls = 1.5 kPa
Seismic Load Data (NCh433):
Zone 2
Soil Type C
A= 0.30 g
In-plane torsion omitted
[mm]
[mm]
Load Combinations:
1.2D + 1.6L
1.2D + 1.0L + 1.4E
0.9D + 1.4E
Seismic weight:
P = 7720 kN (Level 9)
12635 kN (Levels 2-8)
12840 kN (Level 1)
Steel:
BRB cores: Fyc = 260-290 MPa
Other members: Fy = 345 MPa
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada
72
36
73
74
37
Brace Design
75
Column Design
599
599
2907
2001
169
-0.9 x 644 (D) 2492
= 1913
7007
599
2907
1103
2001
4890
169
1103
4890
169
7007
599
169
4092
4437
4092
2591
7916
7916
At Buckling
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada
76
38
Column Design
856
856
856
2907
2907
331
600
4890
600
812
812
-0.9 x 644 (D) 662
= 82
1103
812
7007
7007
856
4890
812
1227
1227
4437
777
6086
6085
Post-Buckling
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada
77
Beam Design
1.2 w D+ 1.0 w L= 8.71
1498
1498
-1498
1103
2907
1498
1210
2907
Mu = 2785
2001
2907
1077
4890
842
2001
-939
7007
4092
842
4890
Mu = 243
4890
939
331
-2565
600
Mu = 243
939
Mu = 3939
2907
1103
-2800
1210
331
1077
1210
-1210
600
939
Mu = 759
556
-556
7007
4890
556
1227
556
Mu = 3896
[kN,m]
At Buckling
Post-Buckling
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada
78
39
21
60
+
00
45
/Hi
e
ng
4000
0+
75
/-
41.6
9000
W610 Beam
Bolted End
Plate Connection
79
80
40
SCBF
2 @ 4000
= 8000
5500
81
Shear
yielding
82
41
Filiatrault et al.
83
84
Residential buildings
Montreal
Martoni Cyr
42
85
86
43
87
Takanashi &
Roeder
1976
Roeder
1977
Malley
1983
Kasai
1986
Ricles
1987
Engelhardt
1989
+ others
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada
88
44
= p L/e
V
e
V
Pinned
connection
(typ.)
V=2M/e
= p L/e
Rigid
connection
(typ.)
Symmetrical
Pf 0 in ductile links
Pinned beam-tocolumn joints
Shorter beam spans
Good clearance
L
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada
89
90
45
e/2
e/2
VL
ML
ML
VL
ML
p
hs
p= p L/e
p
hs
91
p= p L/e
92
46
93
L/2- e/2
Vadj
adj
Vadj
Pbrace
Pbeam
Vadj
Vbeam
Vadj
Mbeam
P col
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada
94
47
e/2
Vadj
adj
Vadj
Pbrace
Pbeam
Vadj
Vbeam
Vadj
Mbeam
P col
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada
95
5 @ 9000 = 45 000
300
(slab edge)
BF (typ.)
EBF
BRBF
8 @ 4000 = 32 000
MRF (typ.)
5 @ 9000 = 45 000
SCBF
5500
PLAN
Gravity loads:
Roof: Dead = 3.2 kPa
Live = 1.0 kPa
Floor: Dead = 3.5 kPa
Partitions = 1.0 kPa
Live = 3.8 kPa
Exterior walls = 1.5 kPa
Seismic Load Data (NCh433):
Zone 2
Soil Type C
A= 0.30 g
In-plane torsion omitted
[mm]
ELEVATIONS
[mm]
Load Combinations:
1.2D + 1.6L
1.2D + 1.0L + 1.4E
0.9D + 1.4E
Seismic weight:
P = 7720 kN (Level 9)
12635 kN (Levels 2-8)
12840 kN (Level 1)
Steel:
BRB cores: Fyc = 260-290 MPa
Other members: Fy = 345 MPa
96
48
97
98
49
99
100
50
101
102
51
103
104
52
( reinforcement plates)
(3/16 reinforcement plates)
105
106
53
Steel
Tube
Steel
Core
Mortar
Fill
Cross-Section
P
P
107
108
54
V / Vy
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-4.0
-2.0
0.0
/ y
2.0
4.0
109
110
55
Vancouver (RJC)
111
20000
Roof / hn
0.8
0.4
0.0
-0.4
-0.8
0.8
0.4
0.0
-0.4
-0.8
V Base (kN)
Roof / hn
0.8
0.4
0.0
-0.4
-0.8
Roof / hn
CBF
CBF
10000
0
-10000
20000
BRB-L
V Base (kN)
BRB-L
10000
0
-10000
BRB-S
-20000
.
20000
BRB-S
V Base (kN)
Accel. (g)
-20000
0.2
0.0
10000
0
-10000
-0.2
-20000
0
10
15
Time (s)
20
25
-1.0
0.0
1/ hs (%)
1.0
112
56
Global buckling:
Concrete Fill
EIr , dr
P
P
a0
Core
L
Gap
P
P
113
All-steel BRBs
2.0
V/Vy
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
10
114
57
115
116
58
117
118
59
119
120
60
http://www.corebrace.com/
http://www.starseismic.net/
http://www.unbondedbrace.com/
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada
121
122
61
21
60
00
45
+/
123
4000
41.6
9000
Lc/c
Lc
124
62
125
Tmax
P / Py
1.0
0.0
-1.0
Cmax
-2.0
-8.0
-4.0
0.0
4.0
8.0
y
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada
126
63
127
Beam Design
Column Design
C adjx+1
Tadj,x
FL,x
FR,x
Tadj,x
Tadj
Cadj
C adj,x
C adjx+1
Tadj,x
FL,x
FR,x
Cu
Chevron
BRB
C adj
C adj
C adj
Tu
0.9 w D
Cu
Tu
Tadj,x
C adj,x
and
1.2 w D+ 1.6 w L
C adj
128
64
129
130
BRBF
65
SCBF
BRBF
131
132
66
Design Beams
Section must meet hd
Must resist expected shear demand upon hinging
Must be laterally braced
L
pb
1.1 R y Mpb
1.1 Ry M pb
Vh
Vh
L'
L' = L - 2 x - d c
133
Design Columns
Section must meet hd
Must satisfy weak beam-strong column criteria
except for:
Columns with Puc < 0.3 AcFy in single-storey buildings or
at the top storey of multi-storey buildings;
Columns with Puc < 0.3 AcFy when their total shear
contribution < 20% of total storey shear resistance and
33% of storey shear resistance along their MF line; or
Columns that have shear capacity to demand ratio 50%
gretaer than in the storey above.
134
67
Cf, i+1
w
1.1 Ry Mpb
w
Vh
M'rc, i+1
1.1 Ry M pb
1.1 Ry M pb
Vh
Vh
1.1 Ry M pb
Vh
M'rc, i
L'
Cf, i
L' = L - 2 x - d c
x + dc /2
x + d c/2
135
136
Vh
1.1 Ry Mpb
1.1 Ry Mpb
Vh
x + d c/2
x + dc /2
68
V
hs/2
hs/2
L/2
L/2
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada
137
Design requirements
Welding requirements
Bolting requirements
Requirements for 6
pre-qualified connections
http://www.aisc.org
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada
138
69
Conxtech Conxl
139
140
70
MRF
Example
141
142
71
At Level 1:
143
144
72
145
146
73
ING St-Hyacinthe
Quirion Metal
Louis Crpeault
Groupe Technika
147
148
74
149
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
Interstory Drift (% )
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
Interstory Drift (% )
150
75
MF + web plate
Vmf
=
Vw
151
152
76
qi
i+1
V bl,i
(T sin ) i+1
(T cos )i+1
M' pb,i
C b,i
C b,i
(T cos ) i
M'pb,i
V br,i
Cb,i
Vbr,i
h i+1
Fr,i
M'pb,i
(T sin ) i
hi
L - 2 x - dc
Ti = t w,i Fy
x + dc /2
2
C b,i = [ (T h sin )
i+1
+ (T h sin ) ] / 2
i
153
Beam-to-Column Connections
Type LD MRF
CP groove welds
Backing bar removed
Run-off tabs removed
Reinforcing fillet welds
Tr = 60% Tr in Cl. 21.3
qi
Vbl,i
i+1
M'pbl,i
i+1
Pbr,i
bl,i
M'pbr,i
V br,i
Beams:
Class 1 or 2
L - 2 x - dc
Beam
Columns:
Class 1, W Shapes
154
77
Corner cut-outs
155
156
78
157
Perforation
(typ.)
45o
45o
> 4 rows
V
> 4 rows
ia
g
Li
Sd
D
S
di
ag
158
79
159
160
80
161
Warning!
Only basic design requirements have been
discussed; several other requirements must be
applied including those related to loads and
load combinations, demand critical welds,
protected zones, bracing, quality control, etc.
Only the systems designed and detailed for
high ductility have been introduced; provisions
also exist for other systems exhibiting
moderate and limited ductility that may be more
appropriate for some applications.
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal
162
81
163
164
82
165
166
83
Observations / Issues:
Structures are not buildings:
Irregular structures with heavy point masses and loads
and low damping
Design is process driven and structure will likely be
modified to accommodate changes to the process
Equipment may interact with the structure
167
Possible avenues:
Ductility (or alternative similar approach) needed to accommodate
uncertainty in ground motions and seismic response
168
84
169
170
85
171
Plan dimensions: 36 m x 60 m x 40 m
Heavy equipment, including 1200t & 750t tanks
Irregularities in mass and stiffness
Montreal Site Class C
Static, Response Spectrum & Linear response history
analyses
172
86
140
STAT-CNBC
STAT-ASCE
SPECTRALE
TH-MDIANE
TH-84e CEN
120
Displacement (mm)
173
100
80
60
40
20
0
Level
174
87
22 400
16 800
5600
2 x 40t cranes
1675
1675
175
Strength ( = -1)
Strength ( = 1)
0.8
0.6
0.4
Stability ( = 1)
0.2
Stability ( = -1)
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
M/R yM p
-0.4
-0.6
176
88
SPEC TH-MedTH-84th
SPEC TH-MedTH-84th
Analysis method
149%
120%
115%
102%
150%
0.4
50%
156%
93%
n.a.
115%
76%
100%
0.2
0.0
STAT
200%
142%
86%
0.0%
0.6
Crane level
Roof level
160%
94%
0.2%
)
0.8
0.4%
Acceleration (g)
0.6%
1.00%
0.91%
0.88%
0.79%
0.78%
0.70%
1.01%
0.93%
0.8%
Analysis method
1.0%
Analysis method
STAT
0%
STAT
Analysis method
1.2%
0.51
0.52
n.a.
121%
106%
0.0
STAT
50%
120%
107%
0.0%
0.2
0.57
0.72
0.2%
100%
0.4
0.37
0.42
0.4%
150%
Crane level
Roof level
0.44
0.52
0.6%
0.6
0.44
0.42
Crane level
Roof level
0.46
0.53
0.8%
0.71%
0.67%
0.70%
0.66%
0.67%
0.63%
0.87%
0.81%
1.0%
Acceleration (g)
STAT
0%
STAT
Analysis method
Analysis method
177
total =e +i
A fuse
Fvertical
Rsh Fy , fuse
e =total/R
i =total/(1 R)
i = xH/h
total =e +i
e =total/R
i =total/(1 R)
=i xh/H
L=/ =/0.03
178
89
1
4
Anchor rod
179
180
90
Crane level
Roof level
1.5%
1.14%
1.14%
1.77%
1.77%
0.5%
1.56%
1.38%
1.0%
1.40%
1.24%
2.0%
TH-MD
TH-84e CEN
TH-MD
TH-84e CEN
0.0%
With anchor
yielding
Without anchor
yielding
181
182
NCh2369 (2003)
Is 8db or 250
mm suitable for
all applications?
91
183
HeadFrame (Mining)
184
92
Pipe Racks
Conveyor Towers
185
186
93
Ductile
Structural
Fuses
187
1.5
Brace Fuse Test 3CT
Without Fuse
With Fuse
25.4 bolts
@ 80x80 (typ.)
280
PL 6x63x250
(2 sides)
40
(typ.)
V / Vy
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
200
64 hole
(4 sides)
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
/ h (%)
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.5
Brace Fuse Test 4CT
Without Fuse
With Fuse
133
200
V / Vy
1.0
0.5
271
133
0.0
HS 102x102x4.8
-0.5
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
/ h (%)
188
94
Fuses for
HSS braces
Tu
Tf
Cf
Cu
LF
P
TuF
Tf
Cf
Cu
Lc
A
C/T
Tu
Tf
C/T
Cf
Steel Tube
Steel Core
Cu
Mortar Fill
Section A
LF
P
T
TuF
Tf
Cf
CuF
189
/ hn (%)
ag (g)
0.2
0
-0.2
10
15
20
Time (s)
0.5
1.0
V NBCC
V/W
P / Tu
0.5
0.0
0.0
V NBCC
-0.5
-1.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
/ y
1.0
2.0
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
B / h n (%)
0.5
1.0
190
95
Angle with
reduced section
HSS brace
Buckling
restraining box
Cut in
HSS
A
bf
Lf
3.75 m
W360x347 (typ.)
Frame support
(typ.)
Loading
arm
W310x179 (typ.)
Typ.
Lt Lw
191
192
1000 kN
Dynamic
actuator
Pin
(typ.)
Brace
fuse
Brace
studied
Pin
(typ.)
Horizontal
reaction block
6.0 m
96
1.5
Brace Fuse Test 5CC
Without Fuse
With Fuse
25.4 bolts
@ 80x80 (typ.)
280
PL 6x63x250
(2 sides)
40
(typ.)
V / Vy
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-3.0
5-6
Cut
-1.0
0.0
/ h (%)
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.5
Brace Fuse Test 6CT
Without Fuse
With Fuse
1034
V / Vy
1.0
Brace
Fuse
-2.0
280
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
/ h (%)
193
194
97
195
196
Fuses in W-Shapes
(Canam Group, Montreal)
98
197
198
99
1.2
1.2
Tu
Tu
0.8
0.8
0.4
Design
P / AFy
P / AFy
0.4
199
0.0
Design
0.0
Design
-0.4
-0.4
Design
Cu
Cu
-0.8
-0.8
-1.2
-5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0
0.0
/ hs
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
/ hs
1.0
2.0
3.0
200
100
201
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
= 4.2
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
Drift at h = 10.0 m
Drift at h = 6.8 m
Drift (% hn )
1.50
1.00
0.50
= 6.8
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
= 1.6
-1.50
Accel. (g)
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
Time (s)
15.0
20.0
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada
202
101
2-tiered CBFs
Designed in accordance with AISC 341-10
SCBF R = 6.0
Los Angeles, CA - Site class D
203
204
102
1
H2
Mc1
Vc2
Tu2 C
u2
2
Vc1
Mc1
H1
Vc2
1
Cu1
Vc2
Mc1
Tu1
M c1
Vc1
Mc1
Vc1
Vc
Frame Lateral
Deformation
Member Forces
(axial loads in columns not shown)
Mc
205
206
103
Conclusions
Design provisions to achieve ductile seismic
performance for building steel structures are
now available for application in practice
Design objective is to prevent structural
collapse and structural damage & residual
deformations are expected
Some issues still need to be addressed
Application of this design approach not
suitable for heavy industrial applications;
specific design provisions needed for these
structures
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada
207
104