Identifying Critical Connections for the Global Performance of Steel Moment Resisting Frames

Abstract:

The investigations following the unacceptable performance of moment resisting frames (MRFs) in the 1994 Northridge Earthquake led to the development of a variety of alternative ductile connections. Tests have shown that these connections have reliable component-level performance, leading to them being recommended in standards worldwide as pre-qualified for MRFs. Current design practice consists of applying a single type of ductile connection, often the reduced beam section (RBS), uniformly throughout an entire frame. These connections are detailed and inspected to ensure that each connection has a similar minimum deformation capacity throughout the building, regardless of local deformation demands.This paper examines the potential design implications of identifying local areas within a MRF having the greatest joint rotational demands. Once identified, the connections at these locations are deemed critical to the global performance of the frame. First, the collapse analysis of a six-storey MRF with well-detailed RBS connections was conducted to quantify an upper bound system-level performance. Thereafter, a lower bound system-level performance was determined by considering a frame constructed using only connections with a lowered rotational capacity. Subsequent series of analyses were conducted to identify critical locations within the frame where RBS connections must have a high reliable rotational capacity to ensure adequate system-level performance.

• Periodical: Key Engineering Materials (Volume 763)
• Pages: 165-173
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.763.165
• Online since: February 2018
• Authors: Paul Steneker*, Lydell D.A. Wiebe, Andre Filiatrault
• Keywords: Collapse Risk Analysis, Connection Design, Global Seismic Behaviour, Moment Frame, Non-Linear Time History Analysis, Reduced Beam Section Connections

References

[1] M. Bruneau, C. -M. Uang & R. Sabelli, Ductile Design of Steel Structure, second ed. McGraw Hill, (2011).

[2] FEMA-350, Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, (2000).

[3] American Institute of Steel Construction, AISC 341: Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, (2016).

DOI: 10.1201/b11248-16

[4] N. F. Youssef, D. Bonowitz & J. L. Gross, NISTIR 5625 A Survey of Steel Moment-Resisting Frame Buildings Affected by the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NISTIR 562, 173, (1995).

DOI: 10.6028/nist.ir.5625

[5] F. McKenna & M.H. Scott, Open system for earthquake engineering simulation, University of California, Berkeley, CA, (2000).

[6] K. -C Tsai & E. Popov, Steel Beam-Column Joints in Seismic MRFs, Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, (1988).

[7] J. Hall, Parameter Study of the Response of Moment -Resisting Steel Frame Buildings to NearSource Ground Motions. Sacramento, CA: SAC95-05: Parametric Analytical Investigation of Ground Motion and Structural Response, Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, (1995).

[8] International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code: Structural Engineering Design Provisions, (1994).

[9] American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE 7-10: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, (2010).

[10] L. F. Ibarra, R. A. Medina & H. Krawinkler, Hystertic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, (2005) 1489-1511.

DOI: 10.1002/eqe.495

[11] L. F. Ibarra & H. Krawinkler, Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations, Stanford, (2005), Technical Report 152.

[12] F. Zareian & R. A. Medina, A practical method for proper modeling of structural damping in inelastic plane structural systems, Computers and Structures, 88, (2010), 45-53.

DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruc.2009.08.001

[13] D. Lignos & N. Al-Shawwa, Web-Based Interactive Tools for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering, (2013).

[14] E. Popov, T. Balan & T. -S. Yang, Post-Northridge Earthquake Seismic Steel Moment Connections, Earthquake Spectra, 14(4), (1998), 659-677.

DOI: 10.1193/1.1586021

[15] M. Dazykowski, S. Serneels, K. Kaczmarek, P. Van Espen, C. Croux & B. Walczak, TOMCAT: A MATLAB toolbox for multivariate calibration techniques, Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 85, (2007), 269-277.

DOI: 10.1016/j.chemolab.2006.03.006

[16] ATC-24. Guidelines for Cyclic Seismic Testing of Components of Steel Structures, Applied Technology Council, (1992).

[17] M. D. Engelhardt & T. A. Sabol, Testing of welded steel moment connections in response to the Northridge earthquake, Northridge Steel Update Number 1, AISC, (1994).

DOI: 10.1016/b978-008042821-5/50094-8

[18] J. Baker, Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis, Earthquake Spectra, 31(1), (2015), 579-599.

DOI: 10.1193/021113eqs025m

[19] B. Chiou, R. Darragh, N. Gregor & W. Silva, Strong Motion Database, Earthquake Spectra, 57(1), (2008), 1-341.

DOI: 10.1193/1.2894831