CE 697R-Seismic Design of Steel Structures Course Design Project

Fall 2006

SPECIAL MOMENT RESISTING FRAME

Design and Performance Evaluation

by

Konstantinos Miamis
Jesus Gonzalez Fernandez

- Purdue University -
 Table of Contents
Design and Detailing of the SLRS
Project Information
Seismic Force Computation
Drift Computation
Beam and Column Capacity determination
Connection Design

Performance Evaluation
Non-Linear Static Procedure
Force-Deformation Relationships
Target Displacements
Progression of the Yielding
Acceptance Criteria
Comments
Design and Detailing of the SLRS

Parameter Value

Building Height 123 ft

Occupancy Category II

Seismic Design Category D

Seismic Use Group I

Importance Factor 1

Seismic Weight W 21038 kips

Seismic Load Resisting

System SMF

R 8

Cd 5.5
Plan view of the Building

Location of
the SLRS
Elevation view of the Building
Columns
Beams
W36x135
W14x311
W36x170
W14x398
W36x210
W14x500

W36x232
W14x550
 Seismic Force Computation
Equivalent Lateral Load Procedure

Seismic Ground Motion Parameters

Approximate Fundamental Period Tα = 1.3 sec
Seismic Response Coefficient Cs = 0.067
Effective Seismic Weight of the Structure W = 21038 kip
Seismic Base Shear V = 1409 kip
Calculation of the Vertical Distribution Factors, Cvx
Calculation of the Lateral Load
 Seismic Force Computation
Summary of the calculated lateral forces

Story Story
Story Height (ft)
Force (kip) Shear (kip)
10 12 258 258
9 12 265 523
8 12 225 748
7 12 188 936
6 12 153 1089
5 12 119 1208
4 12 89 1297
3 12 61 1358
2 12 36 1394
1 15 16 1410

Total 123 1410

 Drift Computation
One direction of the building considered

Load Combinations # 5 and # 7 considered

5% eccentricity to account for accidental torsion

Center of mass and center of rigidity assumed to

coincide (symmetric building) => no inherent
torsion
 Drift Computation
Drift

Amplification

Story Elastic Elastic Factor Design Allowable

Level
Height (in) Displacement (in) Drift (in) for RBS Section Drift (in) Drift (in)

10 144 4.35 0.21 1.08 1.25 2.88

9 144 4.14 0.34 1.08 2.02 2.88

8 144 3.80 0.40 1.07 2.35 2.88

7 144 3.40 0.48 1.07 2.80 2.88

6 144 2.93 0.46 1.07 2.68 2.88

5 144 2.47 0.48 1.07 2.82 2.88

4 144 1.99 0.47 1.06 2.76 2.88

3 144 1.52 0.49 1.06 2.87 2.88

2 144 1.02 0.49 1.06 2.87 2.88

1 180 0.53 0.53 1.06 3.10 3.60

Beam and Column Capacity determination

Seismic compactness requirements satisfied for all

sections

Satisfied axial capacity requirement

Satisfied bending capacity requirement

Satisfied shear capacity requirement

Satisfied bending-axial interaction requirement

 Connection Design
Reduced beam sections selected
Beams and columns satisfy RBS connection
limitations (e.g. beam weight, beam flange thickness)
Calculation of moment at column face
Mf < φd*Mpe
Satisfy MRBS > Mu
Check requirement for ΣMc / ΣMpb > 1
Check panel zone strength => No doubler plates
required
1 st Floor Detail
 Performance Evaluation
The structure will be evaluated according to
the Basic Safety Objective
Satisfy Life safety for BSE-1 Earthquake hazard
Satisfy Collapse Prevention for BSE-2 Earthquake
hazard

Performance evaluation will be done using the

nonlinear static Procedure
 Earthquake hazard levels
Determine the Response Spectrum for the BSE-
1 and BSE-2 Earthquake Hazards
Determine Sa for BSE-1 and BSE-2 based on the
fundamental Period of the structure (T=1.9 sec)
For BSE-2 Earthquake: Sa = 0.55
For BSE-1 Earthquake: Sa = 0.37
Obtain values of Cvx to use in the linear lateral
load distribution for the nonlinear static analysis
 Non-Linear Static Procedure
Pushover Analysis Model
Force-Displacement Relationships for beam
and column plastic hinges
Lateral Load Distribution and gravity load
cases considered
Determination of Target Displacement
Acceptance criteria satisfaction
 Pushover Analysis Model
Plastic hinges defined at beams (RBS location)
Plastic hinges defined at column ends
Panel Zone Modeling
Strength Requirement (Vpz > Vbeam)
Stiffness Requirement (Kpz > 10*Kb)
Model panel zones as rigid
Joint Modeling
Rigid between column face and beam plastic hinges
P-Δ Effects included in the analysis
Force-Displacement Relationships
Force Deformation Relationship

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
Q/Qce

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Rotation (rad)

θ Q/QCE Q
A 0.000 0.00 0
• Stories 1-4
B 0.006 1.00 3052 RBS Section
C 0.063 1.27 3876
D 0.063 0.60 1831
E 0.075 0.60 1831
F 0.075 0.00 0
 Load case determination

Gravity Load cases

Case 1: QG = 1.1*(QD + QL + S)
Case 2: QG = 0.9*QD
Lateral load Distribution
Vertical Distribution proportional to Cvx
Uniform Distribution also used
BSE-1 and BSE-2 Earthquake hazards considered
Total of eight load cases
 Target Displacement
Modification factors
C0 = 1.5 (non-shear building)
C1 = 1.0 (Te > Ts in all cases)
C2 = 1.0 (pinching-non linear procedure)
C3 = 1.0 (positive post-yield stiffness)
Determination of Period Te
Calculation of target displacement for each
analysis case
Base Shear vs Displacement
Pushover
Pushoverplot
plot for
forUniform Distribution(BSE2)
Linear Distribution (BSE2)

4000

3500

3000
Base Shear (kip)

2500
Nonlinear
Nonlinear
2000
Bilinear
Bilinear
1500

1000

500

0
0 55 10
10 1515 2020 2525 30 30 35 35 40 4045 4550 5055 55
60

Displacement
Displacement (in)
(in)
Base Shear vs Displacement
Pushoverplot
Pushover plotfor
forUniform
Linear Distribution
Distribution(BSE1)
(BSE1)

4000
4000

3500
3500

3000
3000
Base Shear (kip)

2500
2500
Nonlinear
2000
2000
Bilinear
1500
1500

1000
1000

500
500

0
0 55 10
10 1515 2020 25 25 30 30 35 3540 4045 4550 50
55 55
60

Displacement (in)
Uniform Lateral Load Distribution
Linear Lateral Load Distribution
 Acceptance Criteria
Beams (deformation controlled)
Satisfaction of acceptance criteria determined graphically at hinge
locations for target displacement
Columns: P/PCL < 0.5 for all cases => deformation
controlled
Satisfaction of acceptance criteria determined graphically at hinge
locations for target displacement
Panel zones modeled as rigid => automatic
satisfaction of acceptance criteria
 Comments
The state of the plastic hinges (plastic rotation) could
not be obtained numerically from SAP v7.4.4. =>
Acceptance criteria checked graphically
The axial force of the columns at target displacement
is required in order to model the hinges at the columns
Assumed P/PCL < 0.2 => modeling parameters a,b,c constant.
Not true for edge columns at the first two floors
Iteration procedure required.
For the uniform load distribution the target
displacement is too close to the collapse displacement
Structure is redesigned to behave as a shear building:
target displacement would be more removed from the
collapse displacement
Questions ???