Upload
mihail-perciun
View
229
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
1/66
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
2/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
List of Tutorials
1. Design and verification of a steel moment
resisting frame
2. Design and verification of a steel concentric
braced frame
3. Assignment: Design and verification of a steel
eccentric braced frame
2
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
3/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Design and verification of a steel Concentric
Braced Frames
1. Introduction
2. General requirements for Concentric Braced
Frames
3. Damage limitation
4. Structural analysis and calculation models
5. Verification
3
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
4/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Introduction
The case study is a six storey residential buildingwith a rectangular plan, 31.00 m x 24.00 m. The
storey height is equal to 3.50 m with exception of
the first floor, which is 4.00 m high
4
Building
description
Normative
references
Materials
Actions
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
5/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Introduction
Structural plan and configuration of the CBFs
5
Building
description
Normative
references
Materials
Actions
6
6
22 2
731
6 5
6
6 2.34 2.332.33 2.52.5
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
7
6
24
X Bracings V Bracings
Direction X Direction Y
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
6/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Introduction
composite slabs with profiled steel sheetings are adopted toresist the vertical loads and to behave as horizontal rigid
diaphragms.
The connection between slab and beams is provided by
ductile headed shear studs that are welded directly through
the metal deck to the beam flange.
6
Buildingdescription
Normative
references
Materials
Actions
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
7/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Introduction
Apart from the seismic recommendations, the structural safetyverifications are carried out according to the following
European codes:
- EN 1990 (2001) Eurocode 0: Basis of structural design;
- EN 1991-1-1 (2002) Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part
1-1: General actions -Densities, self-weight, imposed loads for
buildings;
- EN 1993-1-1 (2003) Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures -
Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings;
- EN 1994-1-1 (2004) Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel
and concrete structures - Part 1.1: General rules and rules forbuildings.
In EU specific National annex should be accounted for design.
For generality sake, the calculation examples are carried out
using the recommended values of the safety factors7
Buildingdescription
Normative
references
Materials
Actions
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
8/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Introduction
It is well known that the standard nominal yield stress fy is theminimum guaranteed value, which is generally larger than the actual
steel strength.
Owing to capacity design criteria, it is important to know the maximum
yield stress of the dissipative parts.
This implies practical problems because steel products are not usually
provided for an upper bound yield stress.
Eurocode 8 faces this problem considering 3 different options:
a) the actual maximum yield strength fy,maxof the steel of dissipative
zones satisfies the following expression
fy,max1.1ovfy
where fyis the nominal yield strength specified for the steel grade and
gov is a coefficient based on a statistic characterization of steel
products.
The Recommended value is 1.25 (EN1998-1 6.2.3(a)), but the
designer may use the value provided by the relevant National Annex.8
Buildingdescription
Normative
references
Materials
Actions
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
9/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Introduction
b) this clause refers to a situation in which steel producers provide a
seismic-qualifiedsteel grade with both lower and upper bound value
of yield stress defined.
So if all dissipative parts are made considering one seismic steel
grade and the non-dissipative are made of a higher grade of steel
there is no need for govwhich can be set equal to 1.
c) the actual yield strength fy,actof the steel of each dissipative zone is
determined from measurements and the overstrength factor is
computed for each dissipative zone as gov,act= fy,act / fy , fybeing the
nominal yield strength of the steel of dissipative zones.
9
Buildingdescription
Normative
references
Materials
Actions
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
10/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Introduction
In general at design stage the actual yield stress of the material is not
known a-priori. So the case a) is the more general.
Hence, in this exercise we use it.
10
Buildingdescription
Normative
references
Materials
Actions
Grade fy ft M ov E
(N/mm2) (N/mm
2) (N/mm
2)
S235 235 360 gM0= 1.00
gM1= 1.00
gM2= 1.25
1.00 210000S355 355 510
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
11/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Introduction
Characteristic values of vertical persistent and transient actions
11
Buildingdescription
Normative
references
Materials
Actions
Gk(kN/m2) Qk(kN/m
2)
Storey slab 4.20 2.00
Roof slab 3.600.50
1.00 (Snow)
Stairs 1.68 4.00
Claddings 2.00
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
12/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Introduction
Seismic actionA reference peak ground acceleration equal to agR= 0.25g (being g
the gravity acceleration), a type C soil and a type 1 spectral shape
have been assumed.
The design response spectrum is then obtained starting from the
elastic spectrum using the following equations
12
Buildingdescription
Normative
references
Materials
Actions
0 BT T 2.51 1d gB
TS T a S T q
B CT T T 2.5
d gS T a S q
C DT T T
2.5 Cg
d
g
Ta S
q TS T
a
DT T 2
2.5 C Dg
d
g
T Ta S
q TS T
a
S= 1.15, TB= 0.20 s , TC= 0.60 s and TD= 2.00 s.
The parameter is the lower bound factor for the horizontal design
spectrum, whose value should be found in National Annex.
= 0.2 is recommended by the code (EN1998-1.2.2.5)
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
13/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Introduction
Seismic actionElastic and design response spectra
13
Buildingdescription
Normative
references
Materials
Actions
behaviour factor q was assigned according to EC8 (DCH concept)
as follows:
4
2.5
q for X-CBFs
q for inverted V-CBFs
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
T(s)
S
e,
S
d(
m/s2)
Elastic spectrum
Design spectrum-X braces
Design spectrum-Inverted-V braces
lower bound = 0.2ag
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
14/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Introduction
Combination of actionsIn case of buildings the seismic action should be combined with
permanent and variable loads as follows:
where Gk,i is the characteristic value of permanent action I(the self
weight and all other dead loads), AEd is the design seismic action(corresponding to the reference return period multiplied by the
importance factor), Qk,iis the characteristic value of variable action I
and 2,i is the combination coefficient for the quasi-permanent value
of the variable action I,which is a function of the destination of use
of the building
14
Buildingdescription
Normative
references
Materials
Actions
k,i k,i Ed2,i" " " "G Q A
Type of variable actions 2i
Category ADomestic, residential areas 0.30
Roof 0.30
Snow loads on buildings 0.20
Stairs 0.80
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
15/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Introduction
MassesIn accordance with EN 1998-1 3.2.4 (2)P, the inertial effects in the
seismic design situation have to be evaluated by taking into account
the presence of the masses corresponding to the following
combination of permanent and variable gravity loads:
where is the combination coefficient for variable action i,which takes into account the likelihood of the loads Qk,i to be not
present over the entire structure during the earthquake, as well as a
reduced participation in the motion of the structure due to a non-rigid
connection with the structure.
15
Buildingdescription
Normative
references
Materials
Actions
k,i k,iE,i" "G Q
E,i 2i
Type of variable actions 2i Ei
Category ADomestic, residential areas 0.30 0.50 0.15
Roof 0.30 1.00 0.30
Snow loads on buildings 0.20 1.00 0.20
Stairs 0.80 0.50 0.40
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
16/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Introduction
Seismic weights and masses in the worked example
16
Buildingdescription
Normative
references
Materials
Actions
Storey Gk Qk Seismic Weight Seismic Mass
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN/m2) (kN s
2/m)
VI 3195,63 1326,00 3519.03 4.73 358.72
V 3990,72 1608,00 4196.23 5.64 427.75IV 4087,66 1608,00 4276.87 5.75 435.97
III 4106,70 1608,00 4283.01 5.76 436.60
II 4187,79 1608,00 4353.15 5.85 443.75
I4261,26 1608,00
4411.33 5.93 449.68
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
17/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
General requirements for CBFs
Basic principles of conceptual design- structural simplicity: it consists in realizing clear and direct paths for
the transmission of the seismic forces
- uniformity: uniformity is characterized by an even distribution of the
structural elements both in-plan and along the height of the building.
- symmetry : a symmetrical layout of structural elements is envisaged
- redundancy: redundancy allow redistributing action effects and
widespread energy dissipation across the entire structure
- bi-directional resistance and stiffness: the building structure must be
able to resist horizontal actions in any direction
- torsional resistance and stiffness: building structures should possess
adequate torsional resistance and stiffness to limit torsional motions- diaphragmatic behaviour at storey level: the floors (including the roof)
should act as horizontal diaphragms, thus transmitting the inertia forces
to the vertical structural systems
- adequate foundation: the foundations have a key role, because they
have to ensure a uniform seismic excitation on the whole building.
17
Basicprinciples of
conceptual
design
Plan location
of CBFs andstructural
regularity
Damage
limitation
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
18/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
General requirements for CBFs
CBFs are mainly located along the perimeter of the building.There is the same number of CBF spans in the 2 main direction of the
plan.
Hence, the building is regular in-plan because it complies with thefollowing requirements (EN 1998-1 4.2.3.2):
- The building structure is symmetrical in plan with respect to two
orthogonal axes in terms of both lateral stiffness and mass distribution.
- The plan configuration is compact; in fact, each floor may be delimited
by a polygonal convex line. Moreover, in plan set-backs or re-entrant
corners or edge recesses do not exist.18
Basicprinciples of
conceptual
design
Plan location
of CBFs andstructural
regularity
Damage
limitation
6
6
22 2
731
6 5
6
6 2.34 2.332.33 2.52.5
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
76
24
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
19/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
General requirements for CBFs
- The structure has rigid in plan diaphragms.
- The in-plan slenderness ratio Lmax/Lminof the building is lower
than 4 (31000 mm / 24000 mm = 1.29), where Lmaxand Lminare
the larger and smaller in plan dimensions of the building,
measured in two orthogonal directions.
- At each level and for both X and Y directions, the structural
eccentricity eo (which is the nominal distance between the
centre of stiffness and the centre of mass) is practically
negligible and the torsional radius r is larger than the radius of
gyration of the floor mass in plan
19
Basicprinciples of
conceptual
design
Plan location
of CBFs andstructural
regularity
Damage
limitation
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
20/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
General requirements for CBFs
Regularity in elevation
- All seismic resisting systems are distributed along the building
height without interruption from the base to the top of the
building.
- Both lateral stiffness and mass at every storey practically
remain constant and/or reduce gradually, without abrupt
changes, from the base to the top of the building.
- The ratio of the actual storey resistance to the resistance
required by the analysis does not vary disproportionately
between adjacent storeys.
- There are no setbacks20
Basicprinciples of
conceptual
design
Plan location
of CBFs andstructural
regularity
Damage
limitation
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
21/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
General requirements for CBFs
damage limitation requirement is expressed by the followingEquation:
drn h
where:is the limit related to the typology of non-structural elements;
dris the design interstorey drift;
h is the storey height;
n is a displacement reduction factor depending on the
importance class of the building, whose values are specified inthe National Annex. In this Tutorial n= 0.5 is assumed, which is
the recommended value for importance classes I and II
(the structure calculated in the numerical example belonging to
class II).
21
Basicprinciples of
conceptual
design
Plan location
of CBFs andstructural
regularity
Damage
limitation
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
22/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
General requirements for CBFs
According to EN 1998-1 4.3.4, If the analysis for the design seismicaction is linear-elastic based on the design response spectrum (i.e.
the elastic spectrum with 5% damping divided by the behaviour
factor q), then the values of the displacements ds are those from
that analysis multiplied by the behaviour factor q, as expressed by
means of the following simplified expression:
ds= qdde
where:
ds is the displacement of the structural system induced by the
design seismic action;
qdis the displacement behaviour factor, assumed equal to q;
deis the displacement of the structural system, as determined by a
linear elastic analysis under the design seismic forces.
22
Basicprinciples of
conceptual
design
Plan location
of CBFs andstructural
regularity
Damage
limitation
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
23/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Structural analysis and calculation models
In this Tutorial two separate calculation 2D planar models in thetwo main plan directions have been used, one in X direction and
the other in Y direction. This approach is allowed by the EC8 (at
clause 4.3.1(5)), since the examined building satisfies the
conditions given by EN 1998-1 4.2.3.2 and 4.3.3.1(8)
Modelling assumptions:
for the gravity load designed parts of the frame (beamto-
columns connections, column bases) have been assumed as
perfectly pinned, but columns are considered continuous
through each floor beam.Masses are considered as lumped into a selected master-joint
at each floor, because the floor diaphragms may be taken as
rigid in their planes
The models of X-CBFs and inverted V-CBFs need different
assumption for the braced part.23
Generalfeatures
Calculation
models and
code
requirementsfor X-CBFs
Calculation
models and
code
requirements
for inverted
V-CBFs
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
24/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Structural analysis and calculation models
In 3D model, in order to account for accidental torsional effects the
seismic effects on the generic lateral load-resisting system are
multiplied by a factor
where:
xis the distance from the centre of gravity of the building, measured
perpendicularly to the direction of the seismic action considered;
Leis the distance between the two outermost lateral load resisting
systems.24
x
Le
G
1 0 6e
x.
L
Seismicactio
n
Seismic
resistant
system
Generalfeatures
Calculation
models and
code
requirementsfor X-CBFs
Calculation
models and
code
requirements
for inverted
V-CBFs
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
25/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Structural analysis and calculation models
In planar models, If the analysis is performed using two planar models,
one for each main horizontal direction, torsional effects may be
determined by doubling the accidental eccentricity as follows:
25
x
Le
G
1 1 2e
x.
L
Seism
icaction
Seismic
resistant
system
Generalfeatures
Calculation
models and
code
requirementsfor X-CBFs
Calculation
models and
code
requirements
for inverted
V-CBFs
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
26/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Structural analysis and calculation models
An important aspect to be taken into account is the influence of second
order (P-) effects on frame stability. Indeed, in case of large lateral
deformation the vertical gravity loads can act on the deformed
configuration of the structure so that to increase the level the overall
deformation and force distribution in the structure thus leading to
potential collapse in a sidesway mode under seismic condition
26
Generalfeatures
Calculation
models and
code
requirementsfor X-CBFs
Calculation
models and
code
requirements
for inverted
V-CBFs
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
27/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Structural analysis and calculation models
According to EN 1998-1, 4.4.2.2(2) second-order (P-) effects are
specified through a storey stability coefficient () given as:
where: Ptotis the total vertical load, including the load tributary to gravity
framing, at and above the storey considered in the seismic design
situation;
Vtotis seismic shear at the storey under consideration;
his the storey height;
dris the design inter-storey drift, given by the product of elastic inter-
storey drift from analysis and the behaviour factor q(i.e. de q).
27
tot r
tot
P d
V h
Generalfeatures
Calculation
models and
code
requirementsfor X-CBFs
Calculation
models and
code
requirements
for inverted
V-CBFs
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
28/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Structural analysis and calculation models
Frame instability is assumed for 0.3. If 0.1, second-order effects
could be neglected, whilst for 0.1 < 0.2, P-effects may be
approximately taken into account in seismic action effects through the
following multiplier:
Differently from MRFs, for CBFs it is common that the storey stability
coefficient is < 0.1, owing to the large lateral stiffness of this type of
structural scheme.
Hence, CBFs are generally insensitive to P-Delta effects
28
1
1
Generalfeatures
Calculation
models and
code
requirementsfor X-CBFs
Calculation
models and
code
requirements
for inverted
V-CBFs
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
29/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Structural analysis and calculation models
X-CBFsAccording to EN 1998-1 6.7.2(2)P, in case of X-CBFs the structuralmodel shall include the tension braces only, unless a non-linear
analysis is carried out. Then, the generic braced bay is ideally
composed by a single brace (i.e. the diagonal in tension).
Generally speaking, in order to make tension alternatively developing in
all the braces at any storey, two models must be developed, one withthe braces tilted in one direction and another with the braces tilted in
the opposite direction
29a
k 2i kiiG Q
,Ed iF
b
k 2i kiiG Q
,Ed iF
Generalfeatures
Calculation
models and
code
requirementsfor X-CBFs
Calculation
models and
code
requirements
for inverted
V-CBFs
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
30/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Structural analysis and calculation models
X-CBFsthe diagonal braces have to be designed and placed in such a waythat, under seismic action reversals, the structure exhibits similar lateral
load-deflection response in opposite directions at each storey
where A+ and A- are the areas of the vertical projections of the cross-
sections of the tension diagonals (Fig. 4.6) when the horizontal seismic
actions have a positive or negative direction, respectively30
Generalfeatures
Calculation
models and
code
requirementsfor X-CBFs
Calculation
models and
code
requirements
for inverted
V-CBFs
0.05A A
A A
-
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
31/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Structural analysis and calculation models
X-CBFsThe diagonal braces have also to be designed in such a way
that the yield resistance Npl,Rd of their gross cross-section is
such that Npl,RdNEd, where NEd is calculated from the elastic
model illustrated in Fig. 4.5 (Section 4.4.2).
In addition, the brace slenderness must fall in the range
31
Generalfeatures
Calculation
models and
code
requirementsfor X-CBFs
Calculation
models and
code
requirements
for inverted
V-CBFs
1.3 2.0
beingy
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
32/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Structural analysis and calculation models
X-CBFsthe restraint effect of the diagonal in tension has been taken into
account in the calculation of the geometrical slenderness of X-
diagonal braces. This effect halves the brace in-plane buckling
length, while it is taken as inefficient for out-of-plane buckling
Hence, the geometrical in-plane slenderness is calculatedconsidering the half brace length, while the out-of-plane ones
considering the entire brace length
32
Generalfeatures
Calculation
models and
code
requirementsfor X-CBFs
Calculation
models and
code
requirements
for inverted
V-CBFs
Out-of-plane buckling In-plane buckling
L b
Lb
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
33/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Structural analysis and calculation models
X-CBFsIn order to force the formation of a global mechanism, which
means maximizing the number of yielding diagonals, clause
6.7.4(1) of the EC8 imposes that the ratios i = Npl,Rd,i/NEd,i ,
which define the design overstrength of diagonals, may not vary
too much over the height of the structure.
In practical, being the minimum over-strength ratio, the values
of all other ishould be in the range to 1.25
33
Generalfeatures
Calculation
models and
code
requirementsfor X-CBFs
Calculation
models and
code
requirements
for inverted
V-CBFs
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
34/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Structural analysis and calculation models
X-CBFsOnce has been calculated, the design check of a beam-
column member of the frame is based on Equation
In case of columns, axial forces induced by seismic actions are
directly provided by the numerical model.
This does not apply to beams
34
Generalfeatures
Calculation
models and
code
requirementsfor X-CBFs
Calculation
models and
code
requirements
for inverted
V-CBFs
, , ,( ) 1.1pl Rd Ed Ed G ov Ed EN M N Ng
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
35/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Structural analysis and calculation models
X-CBFsIn the numerical model, floors are usually simulated by means ofrigid diaphragms. In such a way the relative in-plane
deformations are eliminated and the numerical model gives null
beam axial forces.
it is possible to calculate the beam axial forces by simple handcalculations:
35
Generalfeatures
Calculation
models and
code
requirementsfor X-CBFs
Calculation
models and
code
requirements
for inverted
V-CBFs
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
36/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Structural analysis and calculation models
Inverted V-CBFsDifferently from the case of X bracings, Eurocode 8 states thatthe model should be developed considering both tension and
compression diagonals
36
Generalfeatures
Calculation
models and
code
requirementsfor X-CBFs
Calculation
models and
code
requirements
for inverted
V-CBFs
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
37/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Structural analysis and calculation models
Inverted V-CBFsDifferently from X-CBFs, in frame with inverted-V bracing
compression diagonals should be designed for the compression
resistance in accordance to EN 1993:1-1 (EN 1998-1 6.7.3(6)).
This implies that the following condition shall be satisfied the
following condition:
where is the buckling reduction factor (EN 1993:1-1 6.3.1.2
(1)) and NEd,iis the required strength
37
Generalfeatures
Calculation
models and
code
requirementsfor X-CBFs
Calculation
models and
code
requirements
for inverted
V-CBFs
,pl Rd EdN N
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
38/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Structural analysis and calculation models
Inverted V-CBFsDifferently from the case of X-CBFs, the code does not impose
a lower bound limit for the non-dimensional slenderness , while
the upper bound limit ( ) is retained.
Also in this case it is compulsory to control the variability of the
over-strength ratios i = Npl,Rd,i/NEd,i in all diagonal braces.
However, it should be noted that, differently from the case of X-
CBFs, the design forces NEd,i are calculated with the model
where both the diagonal braces are taken into account
38
Generalfeatures
Calculation
models and
code
requirementsfor X-CBFs
Calculation
models and
code
requirements
for inverted
V-CBFs
2
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
39/66
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
40/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Structural analysis and calculation models
Inverted V-CBFs
40
Generalfeatures
Calculation
models and
code
requirementsfor X-CBFs
Calculation
models and
code
requirements
for inverted
V-CBFs
Static balance of horizontal forces:FEd,i= (1+0.3)(Npl,Rd,(i+1)cos(i+1)-Npl,Rd,icosi)
qi=Fi/L
Npl,Rd,(i+1)cos(i+1)
Axial force diagram
Npl,Rd,(i+1)0.3Npl,Rd,(i+1)
0.3Npl,Rd,(i+1)cosi+1)
Npl,Rd,i 0.3Npl,Rd,i
Npl,Rd,(i+1)cos(i+1)+qiL/2
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
41/66
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
42/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Verifications
Numerical models for inverted V-CBFs
42
Numericalmodels and
dynamic
properties
P-effects
X-CBFs
Inverted V-
CBFs
Connections
Damage
limitation
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
43/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Verifications
43
Numericalmodels and
dynamic
properties
P-effects
X-CBFs
Inverted V-
CBFs
Connections
Damage
limitation
T1= 0.874s;M1= 0.759 T2= 0.316s;M2=0.161
Dynamic properties in X direction
T1= 0.455s;M1= 0.765 T2= 0.176s;M2=0.156
Dynamic properties in Y direction
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
44/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Verifications
The effects of actions included in the seismic design situation
have been determined by means of a linear-elastic modal
response spectrum analysis.
The first two modes have been considered because they satisfy
the following criterion:
thesum of the effective modal masses for the modes taken intoaccount amounts to at least 90% of the total mass of the
structure.
Since the first two vibration modes in both X and Y direction
may be considered as independent (being T2 0.9T1, EN 1998-1, 4.3.3.3.2) the SRSS (Square Root of the Sum of the Squares)
method is used to combine the modal maxima
44
Numericalmodels and
dynamic
properties
P-effects
X-CBFs
Inverted V-
CBFs
Connections
Damage
limitation
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
45/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazardsand Catastrophic Events
Verifications
the coefficient are lesser than 0.1 for both X-CBFs
and inverted V-CBFs.
Hence, the structure is not sensitive to second order
effects that can be neglected in the calculations.
This result is generally common for CBFs
45
Numericalmodels and
dynamic
properties
P-effects
X-CBFs
Inverted V-
CBFs
Connections
Damage
limitation
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
46/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazards
and Catastrophic Events
Verifications
Circular hollow sections and S 235 steel grade areused for X braces. The brace cross sections are
class 1.
46
Numericalmodels and
dynamic
properties
P-effects
X-CBFs
Inverted V-
CBFs
Connections
Damage
limitation
StoreyBrace cross section
dx t
d t d/t .502
(mm x mm) (mm) (mm) -
VI 114.3x4 114.3 4 28.58 50.00
V 121x6.3 121 6.3 19.21 50.00
IV 121x8 121 8 15.13 50.00
III 121x10 121 10 12.10 50.00
II 133x10 133 10 13.30 50.00
I 159x10 159 10 15.90 50.00
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
47/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazards
and Catastrophic Events
Verifications
The circular hollow sections are suitable to satisfy both the slenderness
limits (1.3 < 2.0) and the requirement of minimizing the variation
among the diagonals of the overstrength ratio i, whose maximum
value (max) must not differ from the minimum one (min) by more than
25%. .
47
Numericalmodels and
dynamic
properties
P-effects
X-CBFs
Inverted V-
CBFs
Connections
Damage
limitation
Storey
Brace crosssection
(dx t) Npl,Rd NEd i= Npl,Rd imin (x 100)(mm x
mm)(kN) (kN)
NEd min
VI 114.3x4 178.10 1.90 326.65 180.65 1.81 16.70
V 121x6.3 171.08 1.82 533.45 325.70 1.64 5.71
IV 121x8 173.22 1.85 667.40 430.74 1.55 0.00
III 121x10 176.29 1.88 820.15 517.46 1.58 2.29
II 133x10 159.31 1.70 907.10 576.19 1.57 1.61
I 159x10 136.57 1.45 1099.80 650.07 1.69 9.19
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
48/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazards
and Catastrophic Events
Verifications
Verification of beams
48
Numericalmodels and
dynamic
properties
P-effects
X-CBFs
Inverted V-
CBFs
Connections
Damage
limitation
IPE 360
IPE 360
IPE 360
IPE 360
IPE 360
IPE 360
IPE 360
IPE 360
IPE 360
IPE 360
IPE 360
IPE 360
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
49/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazards
and Catastrophic Events
Verifications
Verification of beams
49
Numericalmodels and
dynamic
properties
P-effects
X-CBFs
Inverted V-
CBFs
Connections
Damage
limitation
Storey Section NRd NEd,G NEd,E NEd=NEd,G+1.1govNEd,E NRd(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) NEd
VI IPE 360 156.05 265.96 9.70
V IPE 360 281.34 479.51 5.38
IV IPE 360 2580.85 0.00 372.07 634.15 4.07
III IPE 360 446.98 761.82 3.39
II IPE 360 497.72 848.29 3.04
I IPE 360 540.90 921.90 2.80
Storey NEd,G NEd,E
NEd=
NEd,G+1.1govNEd,E MEd,G MEd,E
MEd=
MEd,G+1.1govMEd,E MN,Rd MRd(kN) (kN) (kN) (kNm) (kNm) (kNm) (kNm) M
Ed
VI
0.00
78.02 132.98 64.28
0.00
64.28 361.75 5.63
V 218.70 372.74 86.27 86.27 361.75 4.19
IV 326.71 556.83 86.27 86.27 355.97 4.13
III 409.53 697.99 86.27 86.27 331.14 3.84
II 472.35 805.06 86.27 86.27 312.31 3.62
I 510.16 869.51 86.27 86.27 300.98 3.49
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
50/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazards
and Catastrophic Events
Verifications
Verification of columns
50
Numericalmodels and
dynamic
properties
P-effects
X-CBFs
Inverted V-
CBFs
Connections
Damage
limitation
HE 180 A
HE 240 B
HE 240 M
HE 240 B
HE 240 M
HE 180 A
HE 180 A
HE 240 B
HE 240 M
HE 240 B
HE 240 M
HE 180 A
HE 180 A
HE 240 B
HE 240 M
HE 240 B
HE 240 M
HE 180 A
(a) (a)(b) (b)X
Z
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
51/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazards
and Catastrophic Events
Verifications
Verification of columns
Axial strength checks for columns in + X direction
51
Numericalmodels and
dynamic
properties
P-effects
X-CBFs
Inverted V-
CBFs
Connections
Damage
limitation
column type a
Storey Section A Nl,Rd NEd,G NEd,E
NEd=
NEd,G+1.1govNEd,E Nl,Rd(mm ) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) NEd
VI HE180A 4530 0.59 1608.15 103.77 0.00 103.77 9.12
V HE180A 4530 0.59 1608.15 237.62 91.03 392.76 2.41
IV HE240B 10600 0.75 3763.00 372.52 253.90 805.26 3.52
III HE240B 10600 0.75 3763.00 507.15 465.92 1301.24 2.18
II HE240M 19960 0.77 7085.80 646.06 716.86 1867.85 2.94
I HE240M 19960 0.71 7085.80 786.00 994.39 2480.80 2.03
column type b
VI HE180A 4530 0.59 1608.15 92.33 91.03 247.47 3.82
V HE180A 4530 0.59 1608.15 214.20 253.90 646.94 1.46
IV HE240B 10600 0.75 3763.00 338.31 465.92 1132.41 2.50
III HE240B 10600 0.75 3763.00 461.08 716.86 1682.87 1.68
II HE240M 19960 0.77 7085.80 586.39 994.39 2281.19 2.40
I HE240M 19960 0.71 7085.80 710.44 1341.94 2997.59 1.68
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
52/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazards
and Catastrophic Events
Verifications
Inverted V-CBFs
Similarly to the X-bracing, for the inverted-V braces circular hollow
sections and S235 steel grade are used. The adopted brace cross
sections belong to class 1
52
Numericalmodels and
dynamic
properties
P-effects
X-CBFs
Inverted V-
CBFs
Connections
Damage
limitation
StoreyBrace cross section
dx td t d/t .50
2
(mm x mm) (mm) (mm) -
VI 127x6.3 127 6.3 20.16 50.00
V 193.7x8 193.7 8 24.21 50.00
IV 244.5x8 244.5 8 30.56 50.00
III 244.5x10 244.5 10 24.45 50.00
II 273x10 273 10 27.30 50.00
I 323.9x10 323.9 10 32.39 50.00
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
53/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazards
and Catastrophic Events
Verifications
Inverted V-CBFs
Because of the presence of vertical loads and the different
deformations of columns, the brace axial force is slightly different for
braces D1 and D2
53
Numericalmodels and
dynamic
properties
P-effects
X-CBFs
Inverted V-
CBFs
Connections
Damage
limitation
D1 D1D2D2
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
54/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazards
and Catastrophic Events
Verifications
Inverted V-CBFs
Inverted V-braces (D1 members) design checks in tension
54
Numericalmodels and
dynamic
properties
P-effects
X-CBFs
Inverted V-
CBFs
Connections
Damage
limitation
StoreyBrace cross
section (d x t)Npl,Rd NEd, D1
i=Npl,Rd i (x 100)
(mm x mm) (kN) (kN) NEd d,D1
VI 127x6.3 561.65 245.60 2.29 2.04
V 193.7x8 1097.45 461.96 2.38 6.00
IV 244.5x8 1395.90 622.87 2.24 0.00
III 244.5x10 1722.55 756.68 2.28 1.58
II 273x10 1941.10 843.92 2.30 2.63
I 323.9x10 2317.10 986.84 2.35 4.77
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
55/66
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
56/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazards
and Catastrophic Events
Verifications
Inverted V-CBFs
Verification of beams
56
Numericalmodels and
dynamic
properties
P-effects
X-CBFs
Inverted V-
CBFs
Connections
Damage
limitation
HE 320 B
HE 320 M
HE 360 M
HE 450 M
HE 500 M
HPE 550 M
HE 320 B
HE 320 M
HE 360 M
HE 450 M
HE 500 M
HPE 550 M
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
57/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazards
and Catastrophic Events
Verifications
Inverted V-CBFs
Verification of beams
Axial forces due to the seismic effects in beams of inverted-V CBFs
57
Numericalmodels and
dynamic
properties
P-effects
X-CBFs
Inverted V-
CBFs
Connections
Damage
limitation
qi=Fi/L
NA
Axial force diagram
Npl,Rd,(i+1) 0.3Npl,Rd,(i+1)
ND
Npl,Rd,i 0.3Npl,Rd,i
NB
NC
Storey Npl,Rd qi NA NB NC ND
(kN) (kN/m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)VI 561.65 79.209 0.00 237.63 237.63 0.00
V 1097.45 75.563 365.58 592.27 336.36 109.67
IV 1395.90 42.090 714.33 840.60 340.57 214.30
III 1722.55 46.067 908.59 1046.79 410.78 272.58
II 1941.10 30.822 1121.21 1213.67 428.83 336.36
I 2317.10 27.473 1263.46 1345.88 461.46 379.04
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
58/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazards
and Catastrophic Events
Verifications
Inverted V-CBFs
Verification of beams
Axial strength checks in beams of inverted-V CBFs
58
Numericalmodels and
dynamic
properties
P-effects
X-CBFs
Inverted V-
CBFs
Connections
Damage
limitation
Storey Section A Npl,Rd NEd,G NEd,E=NA
NEd =NEd,G+NEd,E Npl,Rd
(mm ) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) NEd
VI HE320 B 16130 5726.15
0.00
475.25 475.25 12.05
V HE320 M 31200 11076.00 928.63 928.63 11.93
IV HE360 M 31880 11317.40 1181.17 1181.17 9.58
III HE450 M 33540 11906.70 1457.57 1457.57 8.17
II HE500 M 34430 12222.65 1642.50 1642.50 7.44
I HE550 M 35440 12581.20 1807.34 1807.34 6.96
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
59/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazards
and Catastrophic Events
Verifications
Inverted V-CBFs
Verification of beams
Combined bending-axial force checks in beams of inverted-V CBFs
59
Numericalmodels and
dynamic
properties
P-effects
X-CBFs
Inverted V-
CBFs
Connections
Damage
limitation
Storey Section NEd MEd,G MEd,E MEd MRd MRd(kN) (kNm) (kNm) (kNm) (kNm) MEd
VI HE320 B 475.25 41.90 447.83 489.73 762.90 1.56V HE320 M 928.63 58.13 875.05 933.19 1574.43 1.69
IV HE360 M 1181.17 58.35 1113.02 1171.38 1771.10 1.51
III HE450 M 1457.57 58.62 1373.48 1432.10 2247.51 1.57
II HE500 M 1642.50 59.24 1547.74 1606.98 2518.37 1.57
I HE550 M 1807.34 61.28 1946.36 2007.64 2816.22 1.40
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
60/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazards
and Catastrophic Events
Verifications
Inverted V-CBFs
Verification of beams
Shear force checks in beams of inverted-V CBFs
60
Numericalmodels and
dynamic
properties
P-effects
X-CBFs
Inverted V-
CBFs
Connections
Damage
limitation
Storey Section A Av Vpl,Rd VEd,G VEd,E VEd Vpl,Rd(mm
2) (mm
2) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) VEd
VI HE320B 16130 5172.75 1060.20 27.93 149.28 177.21 5.98
V HE320M 31200 9450.00 1943.01 38.75 291.69 330.44 5.88
IV HE360M 31880 10240.00 2098.78 38.90 371.01 409.91 5.12
III HE450M 33540 11980.00 2455.41 38.08 457.83 496.90 4.94
II HE500M 34430 12950.00 2654.22 39.49 515.91 555.41 4.78
I HE550M 35440 13960.00 2861.23 40.62 648.79 689.41 4.15
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
61/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazards
and Catastrophic Events
Verifications
Inverted V-CBFs
Verification of columns
61
Numericalmodels and
dynamic
properties
P-effects
X-CBFs
Inverted V-
CBFs
Connections
Damage
limitation
HE 180 A
HE 180 A
HE 240 M
HE 240 M
HE 320 M
HE 320 M
HE 180 A
HE 180 A
HE 240 M
HE 240 M
HE 320 M
HE 320 M
HE 180 A
HE 180 A
HE 240 M
HE 240 M
HE 320 M
HE 320 M
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
62/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazards
and Catastrophic Events
Verifications
Inverted V-CBFs
Verification of columns
62
Numericalmodels and
dynamic
properties
P-effects
X-CBFs
Inverted V-
CBFs
Connections
Damage
limitation
Storey Section A Npl,Rd NEd,G NEd,E NEd=NEd,G+1.1govNEd,E Npl,Rd(mm
2) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) NEd
VI HE180A 4530 0.59 1608.15 94.72 0.00 94.72 9.99
V HE180A 4530 0.59 1608.15 225.44 182.06 674.27 1.40
IV HE240M 19960 0.77 7085.80 384.77 527.24 1684.50 3.26
III HE240M 19960 0.77 7085.80 534.95 984.00 2960.71 1.85
II HE320M 31200 0.85 11076.00 694.41 1535.70 4480.22 2.10
I HE320M 31200 0.81 11076.00 847.88 2139.46 6122.07 1.46
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
63/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazards
and Catastrophic Events
Verifications
Connections
Connections have to satisfy the requirements given in EN 1998-1 6.5.5.
In particular, the following connection overstrength criterion must be
applied:
Rd
1.1 ov
Rfy
where Rdis the resistance of the connection, Rfyis the plastic
resistance of the connected dissipative member based on the design
yield stress of the material, ovis the material overstrength factor.
In addition, Eurocode 8 introduces an additional capacity designcriterion for bolted shear connections. Indeed, the design shear
resistance of the bolts should be at least 1.2 times higher than the
design bearing resistance.
63
Numericalmodels and
dynamic
properties
P-effects
X-CBFs
Inverted V-
CBFs
Connections
Damage
limitation
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
64/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazards
and Catastrophic Events
Verifications
In the calculation example ductile non-structural elements have
been hypothesized. Hence, the intestorey drift limit to be
satisfied is equal to 0.75%h. Moreover, for what concerns the
displacement reduction factor , it was assumed the
recommended value that is = 0.5 (being the structure
calculated in the numerical example belonging to class II)
64
Numericalmodels and
dynamic
properties
P-effects
Beams
Columns
Connections
Damage
limitation
a)
0.10m
max= 0.54%
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
65/66
European Erasmus Mundus
Master Course
Sustainable Constructions
under Natural Hazards
and Catastrophic Events
Verifications
In the calculation example ductile non-structural elements have
been hypothesized. Hence, the intestorey drift limit to be
satisfied is equal to 0.75%h. Moreover, for what concerns the
displacement reduction factor , it was assumed the
recommended value that is = 0.5 (being the structure
calculated in the numerical example belonging to class II)
65
Numericalmodels and
dynamic
properties
P-effects
Beams
Columns
Connections
Damage
limitation
b)
0.04m
max= 0.54%
8/9/2019 TU8_Design and Verification of a Steel Concentrically-braced
66/66
Thank youfor your attention
http://steel.fsv.cvut.cz/suscos