1

Robert Tremblay
Polytechnique Montreal, QC Canada
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria
Valparaiso, March 2014
Seismic Design and Global Stability
Requirements for Steel Building
Structures in Canada and the U.S.
Part I
Seismic Design
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 2
2
Introduction
Seismic Loading and Analysis
(ASCE 7-10 vs NBCC & NCh codes)
Seismic Design of Steel Structures
(AISC 341-10 vs CSA S16 & NCh codes)
Plan
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 3
Introduction
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 4
3
h
h
W
T = 0.38 s
5% damping
Elastic
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Ti me (s)
-0.5
0.0
0.5
ag (g)
-1.0
0.0
1.0
A / h (%)
Hori zontal 90 deg.
0.0126 h
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
V / W
1.28 W
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
A / h (%)
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
V

/

W
High ground motion levels considered for design can
impose large force demands on structures:
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period, T (s)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
S
a

(
g
)
M 7.0-7.5
10-20 km
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period, T (s)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
S
a

(
g
)
M 7.0-7.5
30-50 km
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period, T (s)
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
S
a

(
g
)M 6.5-7.0
10-20 km
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period, T (s)
0.0
0.5
1.0
S
a

(
g
)
M 6.5-7.0
30-50 km
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period, T (s)
0.0
0.5
1.0
S
a

(
g
)
M 6.5-7.0
70-100 km
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period, T (s)
0.0
0.5
1.0
S
a

(
g
)
M 6.0-6.5
30-50 km
Earthquakes in California
Site Class B 5% damping
Ground motions may be caused by different earthquake
scenarios and have difference characteristics
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 6
4
Steel is a ductile material and this characteristic can be
exploited by allowing structures to deform in the
nonlinear range under rare, large seismic events
o
F
F
Fracture,
instability,
etc.
Ductile
response
y
u
c
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 7
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Time (s)
-0.5
0.0
0.5
ag (g)
-1.0
0.0
1.0
A / h (%)
Horizontal 90 deg.
0.0126 h
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
V / W
1.28 W
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
A / h (%)
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
V

/

W
-1.0
0.0
1.0
A / h (%)
-0.017 h
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
V / W
0.33 W
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
A / h (%)
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
V

/

W
h
h
h
W
T = 0.38 s
5% damping
V
y
= 0.25 W
Elastic
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 8
5
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06
Plastic Rotation (rad.)
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
M

/

M
p
r
M. Englehardt Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal, 1996
Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal, 1996
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 9
-8 -4 0 4 8
o / o
y
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
P / P
y
HSS 102x76x6.4 - KL/r =112
Tension
yielding (typ.)
Inelastic buckling
with plastic hinge (typ.)
P
P
Plasti c
Hinge
o
+
-
+
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 10
6
h
h
W
T = 0.38 s
5% damping
V
y
= 0.25 W
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Ti me (s)
-0.5
0.0
0.5
ag (g)
-1.0
0.0
1.0
A / h (%)
Horizontal 90 deg.
0.018 h
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
V / W
-0.36 W
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
A / h (%)
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
V

/

W
-1.0
0.0
1.0
A / h (%)
-0.017 h
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
V / W
0.33 W
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
A / h (%)
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
V

/

W
h
V
y
= 0.25 W
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 11
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period, T (s)
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
S
a

(
g
)
Los Angeles Area
Site Class B
M6.0 - M7.5
Dist. = 10-100 km
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period, T (s)
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
S
a

(
g
)
,

C
s
Los Angeles Area
Site Class B
Sa (Elastic)
Cs (OCBF - R = 6.0)
x 1/R
Resistance to seismic ground motions through inelastic
deformations can represent an effective strategy :
Design forces can be reduced;
Structure response, including forces, can be better
controlled.
This approach has been adopted in codes. Design must
however be performed to achieve the intended ductile
response.
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 12
7
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 13
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 14
8
Grav.
Grav.
C
C'
T
u
u
y
Grav.
E
> E
> E
Grav.
Grav.
Grav.
Column designed for gravity
plus expected brace tensile
strength
Gusset plates designed in
compression for the expected
brace compressive strength
2. Design other elements :
1. Select Braces:
Design for gravity + E
Check KL/r, b/t, etc. for ductile
response
Gusset plate designed in tension
for the expected brace tensile
strength
Two-Step Capacity Design Procedure (CBF example):
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 15
AISC 360-10
ASCE 7-10
AISC 341-10
United States
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 16
9
NBCC 2010
CSA S16-09
Canada
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 17
Seismic Force Resisting Systems
Plastic
Hinge (typ.)
Shear
yielding
Plastic
Hinge (typ.)
Tension
yielding

Plastic
Hinge Tension
yielding

Tension
yielding
Compression
yielding
e
Plastic
Hinge (typ.)
Plastic
Hinge
End-plate
Bending
Shear
yielding
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 18
10
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 19
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 20
11
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 21
NCh2369 (2003)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 22
12
Structural damage & residual deformations are expected
when applying this design strategy
Kobe, 1995 Kobe, 1995
C.-M. Uang, UCSD
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 23
Variability & Uncertainty
in Demand & Response
0 4 8 12 16
Number of Storeys
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
A

/

h
s

(
%
)
84
th
percentile
50
th
percentile
Predicted
Individual Record
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Period (s)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
S
a

(
g
)
Historical Records
Ground Motions
Design Spectrum
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 24
13
Bruneau, M., Sabelli, R., and Uang C.-M.
(2003) Ductile Design of Steel Structures, 2
nd
ed., Wiley
AISC. (2013) Seismic Design Manual, 2
nd
ed.,
AISC
Filiatrault, A., Tremblay, R., Christopoulos,
C., Foltz, B., and Pettinga, D. (2013)
Elements of Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 3
rd
ed.,
Presses Internationales Polytechnique (PIP)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 25
Seismic Loading and Analysis
(ASCE 7-10 vs NBCC & NCh codes)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 26
14
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period, T (s)
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
S
a

(
g
)
0.53 g
1.22 g
0.23 g
T = 1.0 s
T = 0.2 s
Absolute Acceleration
Response Spectrum
(5% damping)
T = 2.0 s
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Time (s)
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
ag (g)
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
a (g)
-1.2
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
a (g)
0.53
1.22
0.57
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
a (g)
- 0.23
M6.7 1994 Northridge
Castaic - Old Ridge Route St. 90
o
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 27
Required Seismic Data
(from maps or GS websites)
MCE
R
Spectral Values
for Site Class B:
S
S
(0.2s)
S
1
(1.0s)
Long-period transition
period:
T
L
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 28
15
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/usdesign.php
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 29
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 30
16
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 31
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 32
17
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/usdesign.php
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 33
http://www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/hazard-alea/zoning-
zonage/NBCC2010maps-eng.php
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 34
18
http://www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/hazard-
alea/interpolat/index_2010-eng.php
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 35
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 36
19
MCE
R
S
S
& S
1
Spectral Values
for Site Class B
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 37
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 38
20
Importance Factor, I
e
Depends on the Occupancy Category:
I. Buildings that represent low hazard
to human life in the event of failure
II. All buildings except those listed in
Occupancy Categories I, III & IV
III. Buildings that represent substantial hazard
to human life in the event of failure
IV. Essential facilities
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 39
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 40
21
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 41
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 42
22
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 43
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 44
23
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 45
T from: - T = T
a
; or
- Dynamic analysis; except that T < C
u
T
a
for strength design
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 46
24
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 47
F
F
V
M
x
i
x
x
hx hx
hi
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 48
25
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 49
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 50
26
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 51
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 52
27
= redundancy factor
Earthquake Effects:
Load combinations including E:
When combining the two above:
Amplified Earthquake Loads
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 53
P-A effects can be neglected if u < 0.1
Earthquake effects x 1/(1-u)
Nonlinear static or dynamic analysis
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 54
28
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 55
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 56
29
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 57
2011 Decreto
2011 Decreto
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 58
30
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 59
F
k
Z
k
h
2011 Decreto
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 60
31
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 61
R
ASCE/SEI 7-10
3-1/4
6
8
3-1/2
4-1/2
8
7
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 62
32
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 63
Seismic Design of Steel Structures
in accordance with AISC 341-10
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 64
33
Inelastic response of frames
Plastic
Hinge (typ.)
Shear
yielding
Plastic
Hinge (typ.)
Tension
yielding

Plastic
Hinge Tension
yielding

Tension
yielding
Compression
yielding
e
Plastic
Hinge (typ.)
Plastic
Hinge
End-plate
Bending
Shear
yielding
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 65
16 seismic force
resisting systems
detailed for ductile
seismic response
+
SFRS not specifically
detailed for seismic
resistance
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 66
34
V
e
R
V =
Perimeter
members
Roof
Diaphragm
Brace
connections
Bracing
members
Anchor rods
Foundations
V V
Capacity Design
Pout rel le
(typ.) Poutre de toit
(t yp.)
Pot eau
(typ.)

Feui lle de
tabl ier mt all ique
t yp.)
Contr eventement
(t yp.)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 67
Control of
Local Buckling
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 68
35
Expected (probable)
material strength
Liu, J. et al. (2007). AISC Eng.
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 69
Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs)
Energy dissipated in bracing members through
tensile yielding and flexural hinging
Connections and other members expected to
remain essentially elastic
Tension
yielding (typ.)
Inelastic buckling
with plastic hinge (typ.)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 70
36
Kobe 1995
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 71
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 72
37
Uriz and Mahin (2004)
Univ. of California, Berkeley
Fracture in
1
st
cycle at
A
1
2% h
s
1
2
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 73
Northridge 1994
Photos from Peter Maranian, Brandow and Associates (P. Uriz Thesis, 2005)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 74
38
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
o / LH (%)
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
P

/

A
g
F
y
-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
A / hs (%)
HSS 254 x 254 x 12
b/t = 18, KL/r = 42
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 75
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 76
39
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 77
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
o / LH (%)
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
P

/

P
y

-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
A / hs (%)
RHS-4
KL/r =40
b0/t =17
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
o / LH (%)
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
A / hs (%)
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
o / LH (%)
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
A / hs (%)
RHS-2
KL/r =40
b0/t =13
RHS-19
KL/r =60
b0/t =13
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
o / LH (%)
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
P

/

P
y

-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
A / hs (%)
CHS-1
KL/r =42
b0/t =30
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
o / LH (%)
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
A / hs (%)
-3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
o / LH (%)
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
A / hs (%)
CHS-2
KL/r =62
b0/t =31
W-6
KL/r =67
b0/t =5.9
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 78
40
W4
W6
W4W6
6000
4000
2000
0
2000
4000
6000
3 2 1 0 1 2 3
Interstorey Drift Angle (%)
P

(
k
N
)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 79
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Brace Slenderness, = (Fy / Fe)
0.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
D
u
c
t
i
l
i
t
y

a
t

F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e
,

f
= 2.4 + 8.3
y
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
o / o
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
o / o
.
KL/r = 93
HSS 127x76x4.8
KL/r = 142
HSS 76x76x4.8

f
y y
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
o / o
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
P

/

A
g
F
y
KL/r = 42
HSS 254x254x12

f
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 80
41
Design Bracing Configuration
Along any braced line, between 30% & 70% of lateral
load is resisted by tension braces
Tension-only braced frames not permitted
K-bracing not permitted
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 81
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 82
42
Design Bracing Members
Braces must resist gravity + lateral loads
P
n
in tension and compression as per AISC 360-10
KL/r < 200
Section must meet seismic
hd
limits
For built-up sections, individual components must
meet KL/r limits and stitch subjected to shear under
buckling must meet minimum shear strength
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 83
L
L
H
N
KL
out
0.9 L
H
KL
in
0.5 L
N
KL
out
0.5 L
H
KL
in
0.5 L
N
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 84
43
Bracing Configuration
Tension-only braced frames permitted
Bracing Members
Section must meets b/t limits that vary with KL/r
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 85
C
exp
C
exp
Design Expected Brace Strengths
P
/
P
y
T
exp
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 86
44
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 87
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
C
u

/

A
g
F
y
C
u
(S16-01, n = 1.34)
Cu (AISC 1999)
0 50 100 150 200
KL/r
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
C
'
u

/

A
g
F
y

(
D
u
c
t
i
l
i
t
y

=

1
.
0
)
Cu (S16-01, n = 1.34)
0 50 100 150 200
KL/r
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
C
'
u

/

A
g
F
y

(
D
u
c
t
i
l
y

=

3
.
0
)
Cu (S16-01, n = 1.34)
C'u (mean)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
C
'
u

/

A
g
F
y

(
D
u
c
t
i
l
i
t
y

=

5
.
0
)
Cu (S16-01, n = 1.34)
C'u (mean)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 88
T
exp
= A R
y
F
y
C
exp
= A (1.12 F
cr
) where F
cre
= F
cr
with R
y
F
y
< A R
y
F
y
C
exp
= 0.3 C
exp
C
exp
C
exp
T
exp
45
T
exp
= A R
y
F
y
C
exp
= A (1.12 F
cr
) ,F
cre
= F
cr
with R
y
F
y
< A R
y
F
y
C
exp
= 0.3 C
exp
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 89
Schimdt and Bratlett (2002)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 90
46
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 91
Design Brace Connection
Must resist brace T
exp
& 1.1 C
exp
Must allow for ductile rotational behavior or
resist 1.1 x brace expected flexural strength
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 92
47
Net Section Fracture
(HSS Braces)
Kobe 1995
Archambault et al. (1995)
Tremblay and Bolduc (2002)
cole Polytechnique,Montreal
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 93
Kobe
1995
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 94
48
Yang and Mahin (2004)
Univ. of California, Berkeley
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 95
Kanwinde and Fell (2005)
Univ. of California, Berkeley
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 96
49
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 97
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 98
50
Sabelli (2003)
Sabelli (2005)
Sabelli (2003)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 99
Prototype Test Specimen
Attachment to
load frame:
L
W
L
W
L
C-C
L
TS
2
t
2
t
g

g
Gusset
plate
Gusset
plate
35
O
Cover
plate
Cover
plate
5
1
8
2

(
m
i
n
)


@


7
9
3
7

(
m
a
x
)
102
290
35
O
Elevation
Specimen
End Restraint
Side View
End
Hinge
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 100
51
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 101
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 102
Design Columns and Beams
Must resist gravity loads plus two brace force
scenarios:
Upon first buckling & yielding (T
exp
& C
exp
)
In post-buckling range (T
exp
& C
exp
)
Beams in V and inverted-V bracing must be
continuous between columns
Column sections must meet
hd
Beam sections must meet
md
52
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 103
At Buckling Post-Buckling
T T
T T
T T C C
C C
C C
exp,1 exp,1
exp,2 exp,2
exp,3 exp,3 exp,3 exp,3
exp,2 exp,2
exp,1 exp,1
F
3
F
3
F
3
F
2
F
2
F
2
F
1
F
1
F
1
W W W W W W W W W
Brace force scenarios for columns:
Northridge 1994
Photos from Finley 1999
(P. Uriz Thesis, 2005)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 104
53
Taiwan 1999
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 105
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 106
54
M
R
F

(
t
y
p
.
)
BF (typ.)
5 @ 9000 = 45 000
[ mm]
PLAN
300
(slab edge)
5

@

9
0
0
0

=

4
5

0
0
0
Gravity loads:
Roof: Dead = 3.2 kPa
Live = 1.0 kPa
Floor: Dead = 3.5 kPa
Partitions = 1.0 kPa
Live = 3.8 kPa
Exterior walls = 1.5 kPa
Seismic Load Data (NCh433):
Zone 2
Soil Type C
A= 0.30 g
In-plane torsion omitted
Load Combinations:
1.2D + 1.6L
1.2D + 1.0L + 1.4E
0.9D + 1.4E
Seismic weight:
P = 7720 kN (Level 9)
12635 kN (Levels 2-8)
12840 kN (Level 1)
Steel:
BRB cores: Fyc = 260-290 MPa
Other members: Fy = 345 MPa
Note: Redundancy factor, ,
and seismic load effects
with overstrength factor, O
0
,
are not considered.
SCBF
5500
EBF BRBF
4

@


4
0
0
0
=

1
6

0
0
0
[ mm]
ELEVATIONS
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 107
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 108
55
Static method of analysis
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 109
SAP2000
Analysis
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 110
56
Brace Design
Brace Expected Strengths
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 111
At Buckling
Column Design
1103
4890
4092 4749 2492
7916 7916
2591
4437
+ 1.2 x 644 (D)
+ 1.0 x 372 (L)
= 5893
-0.9 x 644 (D)
= 1913
1103
4092
2001
4890
2907
2907
7007
7007
599
169
169 169
599 599
599
169
2001
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 112
57
Post-Buckling
Column Design
1103
4890
1227 5136 662
6085 6086
777
4437
+ 1.2 x 644 (D)
+ 1.0 x 372 (L)
= 6280
-0.9 x 644 (D)
= 82
331
1227
600
4890
2907
2907
7007
7007
856
812
812 812
856 856
856
812
600
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 113
Column Design
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 114
58
At Buckling Post-Buckling
Beam Design
1103
331
4092 1227
2001
600
2001
600
1103
331
1498 1210
939 556
1498 1210
939 556
1077 842
2907 2907
7007 7007
4890 4890
4890 4890
2907 2907
-1498 -1210
-939 -556
-2800 -2565
M = 243 M = 243
M = 759 M = 3896
M = 2785 M = 3939
1498 1210
939 556
1077 842
1.2 w + 1.0 w = 8.71
1.2 w + 1.0 w = 24.0
1.2 w + 1.0 w = 24.0
1.2 w + 1.0 w = 8.71
1.2 w + 1.0 w = 24.0
1.2 w + 1.0 w = 24.0
D
D
D
u u
u u
u u
D
D
D
L
L
L
L
L
L
[kN,m]
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 115
Beam Design
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 116
Next Steps:
Verify drifts and P-delta effects
Perform 3D analysis for in-plane torsion
Design connections

59
9000
O
41.6
W610 Beam
Bolted End
Plate Connection
7
5
0

+
/
-
4
5
0
0

+
/
-
6
0
2
1
H
i
n
g
e
4
0
0
0
Once member sizes are known, more realistic, shorter, brace
effective lengths can be used to assess brace resistances. Brace
sizes may be reduced, which would diminish the force demand on
beams and columns and, possibly, member sizes.
Period T* will increase if member sizes are reduced, which may
lead to lower seismic loads and allow further reduction in member
sizes.
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 117
SCBF
5500
2 @ 4000
= 8000
For this example:
T* = 0.55 s -> 0.65 s
C = 0.119 -> 0.093 (22% reduction)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 118
60
Assignment no. 1
Redo the design of the braced frame
considering that KL for braces are 5600 mm at Level 1
and 4500 mm at levels 2&3.
You may use/refer to the SAP2000 model & the
spreadsheet that were used in the preliminary design
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 119
Moment Resisting Frames
Energy dissipated by plastic hinging in beams
and limited shear yielding in column panel
zones. Plastic hinging in columns permitted at
the base and in single-storey structures.
Connections and other members expected to
remain essentially elastic
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 120
61
Section must meet
hd
Must resist expected shear demand upon hinging
Must be laterally braced
Design Beams
L'
L
L' = L - 2 x - d c
w
pb
1.1 R M y pb
1.1 R M y pb
V = wL' / 2 + 2.2 R M / L'
h y pb
Vh
Vh
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 121
Section must meet
hd
Must satisfy weak beam-strong column criteria
except for:
Columns with P
uc
< 0.3 A
c
F
y
in single-storey buildings or
at the top storey of multi-storey buildings;
Columns with P
uc
< 0.3 A
c
F
y
when their total shear
contribution < 20% of total storey shear resistance and
33% of storey shear resistance along their MF line; or
Columns that have shear capacity to demand ratio 50%
gretaer than in the storey above.
Design Columns
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 122
62
L'
L
L' = L - 2 x - d c x + d /2 c x + d /2
c
w
w w
1.1 R M y pb
1.1 R M
y pb
1.1 R M y pb
1.1 R M
y pb
V = wL' / 2 + 2.2 R M / L'
h y pb
V
h
Vh
V
h
Vh
M'rc, i +1
M'
rc, i
C
f, i
C
f, i +1
Weak beam-strong column criteria:
M*: projected at member
center lines
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 123
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 124
Member forces
upon beam hinging:
63
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 125
x + d /2
c x + d /2
c
1.1 R M
y pb
1.1 R M
y pb
V
h
V
h
V
V
Must meet: t > (d
z
+ w
z
)/90
Shear strength, R
n
:
Design Column panel zone
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 126
64
Design Beam-to-column connections
Must accommodate 4% storey drift angle
Measured flexural resistance at column face (M
cf
) at 4%
storey drift angle > 80% M
pb
Performance considered as demonstrated if pre-
qualified connections are used; otherwise must be
demonstrated through physical cyclic testing:
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 127
http://www.aisc.org
Design requirements
Welding requirements
Bolting requirements
Requirements for 6
pre-qualified connections
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 128
65
Welded Unreinforced Flange
Welded Web
Bolted End Plate
Kaiser Bolted Bracket
Bolted Flange Plate
Reduced Beam Section
Conxtech Conxl
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 129
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 130
66
MRF
Example
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 131
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 132
67
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 133
From
analysis:
b) Moments from response
spectrum analysis
c) Maximum probable
bending moments and shear
forces at plastic hinge
locations
d) Beam induced forces
imposed at column faces
e) Beam induced forces at
column centerlines
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 134
RBS:
>682 kN-m=>OK!
>442 kN =>OK!
68
At Level 1:
E M*
pb
= 656 + 738 = 1394 kN-m
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 135
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 136
69
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 137
371 kN & 354 kN
shears in columns (see
above)
1992 kN force from M
cf
=
1319 kN-m :
1992 = 1319/(678-16.3)
17 kN force induced by
floor diaphragm (from
equilibrium of the two
column shears)
R. Tremblay, Polytechnique Montreal, Canada 138