Seismic of Older Concentrically Braced Frames Charles Roeder (PI) Dawn Lehman, Jeffery Berman (co-PI) Stephen Mahin (co-PI nees@berkeley) Po-Chien Hsiao (GSR) University of Washington Seismic Vulnerability of CBFs • Current research has focused on improving seismic performance of Special Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs). • Redesign of gusset plate can double drift capacity. • Prior to 1988, modern capacity-design principles were not in place. • Preliminary study to evaluate the vulnerability of older CBFs using PBSE and ATC P695. Changing the Design of SCBFs Post-1988/Beyond (SCBF) Pre-1988 (NCBF) • Brace – Kl/r <~ 100 – b/t – seismically compact (1997) • Gusset – Designed for brace material overstrength – Accommodate out-ofplane rotation of brace • Conventional: linear • Improved: elliptical • Brace – No limit on KL/r – No limit on b/t • Gusset – Nominal tension capacity of the brace (lateral forces) – No provisions accommodating out-ofplane rotation of the brace Comparing SCBFs and NCBFs 1. Experimental Results 2. Analytical Modeling 3. Performance Evaluation Experimental Results UW : Single-Story SCBF Load Beam Strong Floor Actuator HSS 5x5x3/8 Brace W12x72 Columns Strong Wall W16X45 Beams SCBF: Clearance types Straight line (2t) Elliptical (8t) (AISC Recommendation) Elliptical clearance allows a more compact plate NCBF: Connection Variations • Extensive! • Some Examples… Example Pre-1988 Connection • Bolted end-plate connection • Relative to SCBF: – Shorter brace-togusset length – Gusset and associated connections are typically weaker than brace Comparison of Three Tests • Current AISC Design Procedure • Improved (Balanced) Design • Older (Pre-1988) Design Improved SCBF Response: Brace 1. Hinging at Center 3. Tearing 2. Cupping 4. Fracture Improved SCBF: Extensive Yielding in Gusset Brace buckling and yielding Extensive yielding and OOP rotation of gusset plate Yielding of beams and columns Comparison of L-2tp and E-8tp 1.2 Yield Force Ratio 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Yield Force Ratio Drift Ratio (%) 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Drift Ratio (%) Response of pre-1988 CBF Analytical Modeling of CBFs Composite fiber sections Rigid elements Spring-type model of gussets Increased strength element Simple connection 10 beam-column elements with initial imperfection through entire length Required Properties of (SCBF) Model 1.Buckling behavior of the brace is a key elements in the SCBF seismic response. 2.Significant deformation of the gusset plate connections and included in model. Variations in the design are important. 3.Local yielding of the beams and columns must be simulated. Nonlinear Model • OpenSees was selected as analysis platform. • Fiber-type (nonlinear beam-column) element for braces, beams and columns. • Custom connection element(s) developed. • Model response beyond brace/connection failure to collapse SCBF Model Well-Discretized Fiber Cross Section Minimum of 10 Elements along Brace Length (b) (a) be HSS Concrete slab (c) (b) (a) be Concrete slab Wide Flange Giuffé-MenegottoPinto model Overview of SCBF Model Model Spring-type of Shear Tab Proposed model of gusset plate connections Rigid Links Brace Fracture Connection Model SCBF: Connection Model • Out-of-plane rotation of gusset plate WW t 2 Mp = sy 6 • Rigid offsets: brace, beam & column Modeling Brace Fracture • Fracture results from low-cycle fatigue at middle of brace • Equivalent plastic strain limit used for continuum analyses; not available from OpenSees analysis approach used local measure of maximum strain. Local Pinching Initial Tearing Brace Fracture Basis of Model • 44 Specimens • 16 Test programs • Wide range of slenderness(34-167), compactness (7-28), & strengths ( range )max. t ,max c,max (a) be Concrete slab c,max t ,max Limit State Calibration Max. εrange 0.08 3~6 7~8 9 10 0.06 11 12 0.05 13 14 15 16 Cal. Cal.εrange εrange 0.07 0.04 ( range )max. t ,max c,max x 0.03 0.02 0.01 range max. ,cal w 0.1435 t 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 εrange 0.4 KL r 0.3 E Fy 0.4 Model Implementation: NCBF Model Connection Model Proposed spring-type model of gusset plate connections combined with axial fracture model of brace-to-gusset connections. Connection Fracture Load Fracture triggered Ke Dlimit Disp. (Ke and Dlimit were calibrated by NCBF32.) Axial Fracture Model of Connection Calibrated by NCBF32 Comparison of Three Frames Improved Current Pre-1988 (NCBF) Predicting Performance of CBFs Performance States (ATC) Dynamic Response Analysis • • • • 3, 9 and 20 story buildings (SAC SMRF) buildings Emphasis on 3-story building model. 40 Seattle ground motions (scaled) 2% and 10% in 50 yr. events Building Height 100 100 100 100 Percentage (%) 100 3F (R=6) 3F (R=3) 9F (R=6) 80 80 2/50 60 50 40 30 25 20 15 20 5 5 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 > DS1 > DS2 > DS3 > DS4 Br. Frac. SD>5% Impact of building height as or more significant than R SCBF vs. NCBF _ 100 100 95 100 Bal-SCBF 95 Percentage (%) AISC SCBF 80 Pre-1988 NCBF 60 10/50 40 VS. 20 10 0 0 0 0 0 Brace buckled or yielded Fracture of brace or connection Potential collapse _ 100 100 100 100 Bal-SCBF 100 Percentage (%) NCBF vs. SCBF AISC SCBF 80 Pre-1988 NCBF 60 2/50 35 40 25 25 20 20 15 0 Brace buckled or yielded Fracture of brace or connection Potential collapse Spectral Acceleration (g) Evaluation of SCBF and NCBF: FEMA P-695 Analysis Collapse Level Ground Motions ŜCT CMR SMT MCE Ground Motions 1.5R Cs 1.5Cd SDMT/1.5R CMR SDMT SDCT Spectral Displacement Incremental Dynamic Analysis Pre-1988 NCBF ŜCT ŜCT SMT SCBF SMT NCBF Results Frame System R Factor Bal-SCBF 6 Pre-1988 NCBF 8 Drifts limits SMT (g) ŜCT (g) 5% 1.76 1.88 10% 1.76 2.77 5% 1.12 2.36 10% 1.12 3.91 CMR SSF ACMR (CMR x SSF) ACMR 20% Pass/Fail 1.07 1.3 1.58 1.3 2.11 1.15 3.50 1.15 1.39 2.05 2.75 4.55 1.73 Fail 1.73 Pass 1.73 Pass 1.73 Pass Conclusions • Pre-1988 CBF vulnerable to “premature” connection failure. • Retrofit methods untested; largely absent in ASCE-31 • Connection model is critical to accurate response and performance prediction of all CBFs. Move beyond “pinned” or “fixed”. • Pre-1988 CBF sustains significant damage at lower levels of seismic excitation, yet exceeds performance of SCBF from FEMA 695 evaluation. Careful(re-)consideration of this approach as a design basis is needed. Overview of New NEES Project