Comparative Response of Earthquake Resistant CBF Buildings Designed According to Canadian and European Code Provisions

Yu Dong Wang; Elide Nastri; Lucia Tirca; Rosario Montuori; Vincenzo Piluso

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.763.1155

Paper Titles

Seismic Retrofitting of Eccentrically Braced Frames by Rocking Walls and Viscous Dampers
p.1105

Minimal-Disturbance Arm Damper Retrofitting: Evaluation of Retrofit Effect Using Multi-Span Steel Frame Specimens
p.1113

Innovative Suspended Superstructure for the Retrofitting of a Steel Truss Railway Bridge
p.1121

Seismic Repair by Cover Plate to the Damaged RHS Column with Strength Deterioration due to the Local Buckling
p.1129

Multi-Hazard Risk Mitigation through Application of Seismic Design Rules
p.1139

Remarks on Seismic Design Rules of EC8 for Inverted-V CBFs
p.1147

Comparative Response of Earthquake Resistant CBF Buildings Designed According to Canadian and European Code Provisions
p.1155

Seismic Assessment of Existing Eccentrically Braced Frames According to NBCC and ASCE 41-13 Evaluation Procedures
p.1164

A Design Formulation for Dissipative Metal Shear Panels
p.1172

HomeKey Engineering MaterialsKey Engineering Materials Vol. 763Comparative Response of Earthquake Resistant CBF...

Comparative Response of Earthquake Resistant CBF Buildings Designed According to Canadian and European Code Provisions

Abstract:

In this study, both Canadian and European code provisions for steel concentrically braced frames (CBF) are discussed and issues addressing ductility classes for brace cross-sections, q factor value and brace configurations as covered in Eurocode 8 are presented. From comparison with the Canadian provisions it is concluded that beams and columns of CBFs designed according to Eurocode 8 could be under-design when braces perform in the inelastic range. A prototype 8-storey CBF building with multi-storey X-braces is designed and analysed in agreement with both code provisions. The nonlinear seismic responses are presented in terms of interstorey drift, residual interstorey drift and floor acceleration. It was concluded that both buildings are able to yield similar base shear, show similar floor acceleration while the European building undergoes larger residual interstorey drift.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas

View Preview

Info:

Periodical:

Key Engineering Materials (Volume 763)

Pages:

1155-1163

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.763.1155

Citation:

Cite this paper

Online since:

February 2018

Authors:

Yu Dong Wang, Elide Nastri, Lucia Tirca*, Rosario Montuori, Vincenzo Piluso

Keywords:

Code, Concentrically Braced Frames, Seismic Design, Steel

Export:

RIS, BibTeX

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Request Permissions

Permissions PLS:

Request Permissions

Сopyright:

Citation:

* - Corresponding Author

References

[1] Sabelli, R., Roeder, C., Hajjar, J. Seismic design of steel special concentrically braced frame systems – A guide for practicing engineers, NIST GCR 13-917-24, 2013, USA.

Google Scholar

[2] Tremblay, R., Elghazouli A. Y., Comparison between Canadian and European seismic design provisions, 6th European Conference on Steel and Composite Structures, Budapest, (2011).

Google Scholar

[3] Constanzo, S., D'Aniello, M., Landolfo R., Seismic design criteria for chevron CBFs: European vs. North American Codes, J. of Constructional Steel research, August (2017).

DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.04.018

Google Scholar

[4] NRCC, National building code of Canada 2015, National Research Council of Canada, ON.

Google Scholar

[5] CEN, EN 1998-1-1: EC 8: Design of Structures for Earth. Resistance. Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions & Rules for Buildings, Comite Europeen de Normalisation, CEN/TC 250, (2005).

DOI: 10.1002/9783433609194.ch3

Google Scholar

[6] CSA. Design of steel structures, CAN S16-14, Canadian Standards Association, Toronto, ON.

Google Scholar