Sunteți pe pagina 1din 18
Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819 www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct Seismic performance of composite
Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819 www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct Seismic performance of composite

Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819 www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct Seismic performance of composite

Seismic performance of composite moment-resisting frames

A.Y. Elghazouli , J.M. Castro, B.A. Izzuddin

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London, UK

Received 29 April 2007; received in revised form 10 September 2007; accepted 10 December 2007 Available online 11 January 2008

Abstract

This paper examines the seismic performance of composite steel–concrete moment-resisting frames. A number of studies are carried out in order to assess the influence of key parameters, related to the structural configuration as well as design and loading considerations, on the inelastic seismic behaviour. Several sensitivity and parametric investigations are undertaken using an advanced analysis program that accounts for material and geometric nonlinearities. Particular emphasis is given to composite frames designed according to the provisions of the European seismic code, Eurocode 8. The validity of employing simplified nonlinear-static loading approaches is evaluated by comparison against the results of incremental dynamic time-history analysis. Natural earthquake acceleration records, which are specifically selected and adjusted for compatibility with the adopted design spectrum, are utilised for this purpose. In terms of frame configuration, it is shown that the span of the composite beam, the extent of gravity loading and the number of stories can all have significant implications on the actual inelastic response characteristics of the structure. Moreover, several design assumptions and decisions, such as those related to the behaviour factors, drift considerations, moment redistribution and panel zone contribution, can also have a direct impact on the resulting performance. The studies presented in this paper highlight important behavioural observations and trends, some of which point towards the need for further consideration and refinement of current design procedures. c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Seismic response; Moment frames; Composite steel/concrete; Nonlinear analysis; Eurocode 8

1. Introduction

The use of moment frames incorporating composite steel–concrete floor systems offers several behavioural and practical advantages over bare steel and other alternatives. The increase of stiffness and capacity due to composite action enables the use of larger beam spans under the same loading conditions. Accordingly, the demand for larger and more flexible usable space, coupled with the need for faster optimised construction processes, has led to an increased utilisation of composite frames in recent years. In terms of seismic performance, composite frames exhibit favourable behaviour due to the enhanced response characteristics including ductility properties. However, the number of detailed studies carried out on the seismic response of composite frames, in comparison with bare steel or reinforced concrete counter-parts, has been relatively limited.

Corresponding author. E-mail address: a.elghazouli@imperial.ac.uk (A.Y. Elghazouli).

0141-0296/$ - see front matter c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

This is attributed, on the one hand, to the assumption that the behaviour could be largely inferred from studies on steel or reinforced concrete frames and, on the other hand, to the complexity of some of the analysis and design issues involved, as reported in previous investigations (e.g. [1–3 ]). Earlier studies have dealt with several modelling and design considerations including connections [ 4, 5 ], shear interaction [6 ], slab effects [7] and behaviour factors [8 , 9 ]. Although previous studies have addressed and resolved important behavioural aspects, there is a need for assessing the key parameters influencing the seismic performance of composite moment frames with typical geometric and loading configurations. In particular, with the recent introduction of Eurocode 8 [10 ], it is important to examine the performance of composite frames designed according to the new European seismic code. Similar to other seismic codes, the design of composite frames in Eurocode 8 (EC8) largely stems from provisions for bare steel frames with some modifications. Consequently, it is also necessary to explore specific features of composite frames and their implication on the inelastic seismic behaviour.

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

1803

et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819 1803 Fig. 1. Structural arrangement for the reference

Fig. 1. Structural arrangement for the reference structure: (a) Plan configuration, (b) Elevation of moment-resisting frame.

In this paper, the seismic performance of composite moment frames is examined. Although emphasis is given to frames designed according to the provisions of EC8, most of the discussions are of more general nature irrespective of the code employed. After introducing the structural configuration as well as design procedures and assumptions adopted, the numerical models and response criteria utilised in this investigation are described. This is followed by an assessment of the nonlinear-static response of a typical composite moment frame with due account of the sensitivity of the response to the loading pattern and the presence of gravity loading. The validity of using nonlinear-static approaches for this type of frame is evaluated by comparison with dynamic time-history analysis, using earthquake records which are carefully selected and adjusted for compatibility with the design spectrum. A number of numerical studies are then carried out in order to assess the influence of key loading, geometric and design parameters on the response of composite frames. The main behavioural observations and trends are discussed and their implications on seismic performance and design are highlighted.

2. Structural configuration and design procedures

For the studies described in this paper, a reference structure is selected such that it can be used as a basis for parametric variations. The structure consists of a five-storey composite steel–concrete office building as shown in Fig. 1. In plan, columns are spaced at 9 m in both directions. Unlike ‘tube’ systems, in which perimeter moment frames may exhibit relatively short spans, the choice of an internal composite frame arrangement would typically be associated with comparatively large beam spans. With due account of column inertia, lateral resistance is provided by composite moment frames in one direction whilst the other plan direction is assumed to have a braced system. The floors consist of 120 mm thick composite slabs of the re-entrant (dovetail) profile with 1 mm thick steel deck supported by secondary beams spaced at 3 m. The internal composite steel/concrete moment-resisting frame, depicted in Fig. 1 (b), was adopted in this study as the reference frame (CREF). The frame was designed according to the provisions of Eurocodes 3, 4 and 8 [10–12 ]. European steel profiles were used for the columns (HE) and the beams (IPE).

1804

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

Full shear interaction was assumed in the composite beams to

avoid undesirable behaviour in connectors as indicated in recent studies [13 ]. The structure was initially designed according to Eurocode 4 for the gravity and wind loading scenarios. The load values were obtained from Eurocode 1 [14 ] and comprise the self-weight incorporating an allowance of 2 kN/m 2 for finishing/partitions, in addition to an imposed load of 3 kN /m 2 , with appropriate load factors. To satisfy the gravity design situation, IPE500, HEB300 and HEB450 cross-sections were required for the beams, external columns and internal columns, respectively. The initial frame resulting from the vertical loading scenario was then checked for seismic conditions according to EC8. The design peak ground acceleration (PGA) was assumed as

0 .30 g , whilst a rock soil (Ground Type A) and Spectrum Type

1 were considered. Since the structure satisfies EC8 regularity

conditions in plan and elevations, equivalent lateral seismic loading based on an idealised first mode of response was adopted. The fundamental period of vibration ( T 1 ) based on the simplified expression given by EC8 ( T 1 = 0 .085 H 3 /4 , where H is the overall height in metres) was 0.65 s. However, T 1 was found to be nearly 1.0 s from modal eigenvalue analysis performed in a simplified structural model assuming centreline representation for the members. This value was deemed more accurate and hence was used in the evaluation of the design base shear. On the basis that use is made of Class 1 cross-sections, which satisfy DCH (Ductility Class High) requirements, the reference behaviour factor (q ) in this case is 5α u 1 . The recommended code value for α u 1 for multi-bay multi-storey frames is 1.3 which results in a behaviour factor of 6.5. The total mass considered for the seismic design situation was about 1440 tons based on a combination of the unfactored dead load and 30% of the imposed load. The resulting design base shear was about 700 kN which was distributed linearly over the height. It should be noted that wind loading was also considered, based on the assumption of a wind pressure of

0 .65 kN /m 2 , but this had no influence on the resulting member sizes. In addition to satisfaction of the seismic strength demands in members, other seismic design checks include compliance with stability and drift criteria as well as capacity design considerations [10 ,15 ]. Second-order stability effects are considered through the sensitivity coefficient (θ ) given as:

θ

= P tot d r

V tot h

,

(1)

where P tot and V tot are the total cumulative gravity load and seismic shear applied at the storey under consideration; h is the inter-storey height; and d r is the design inter-storey drift (product of elastic inter-storey drift and ‘q ’). For θ 0 .1, second-order effects may be ignored. If 0 .1 < θ 0 .2, the multiplier 1 /( 1 θ ) may be used to account for this effect and, in any case, the value of θ should not exceed 0.3. The other drift check is related to serviceability deforma- tions, by limiting (d r ) in proportion to the storey height ( h ) such that:

(2)

d r ν ψ h

where ψ depends on non-structural elements, given as 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.0% for brittle, ductile or non-interfering components, respectively; and ν is a reduction factor in the range of 0.4–0.5 to represent smaller serviceability events. Apart from a number of checks to ensure ductile response of beams, the main capacity design criterion is related to the general concept of weak-beam/strong-column behaviour. For steel and composite moment frames, a specific application rule is stipulated whereby the design moments ( M Ed ) for the columns can be obtained from:

(3)

where M Ed , G and M Ed , E are the moments due to the gravity loads and lateral seismic forces, respectively; γ o v is the material overstrength factor typically assumed as 1.25; is a beam overstrength factor determined as a minimum of i = M pl , Rd ,i / M Ed ,i of beams, where M Ed ,i is the design moment in beam ‘i ’ and M pl , Rd ,i is the corresponding plastic moment. For the reference composite frame under consideration (CREF), the member sizes selected on the basis of the gravity combination were found to satisfy all the seismic design checks as stipulated in EC8. However, the external columns had to be increased to HEB 340 in order to limit (θ ) to a value of 0.2 to avoid nonlinear analysis at the design stage. Six reinforcement bars of 20 mm diameter were also provided in the slab at the beam-to-column joints, as recommended by the detailing rules given in Annex C of EC8. The steel part of the beam- to-column connections were considered to be fully welded in order to achieve an idealised rigid response. Additionally, to comply with EC8 provisions, the column panel zones had to be strengthened through the addition of sets of two doubler plates with thickness 21 mm and 29 mm to external and internal columns respectively.

M Ed = M Ed , G + 1 .1 γ o v M Ed , E

3. Analytical approaches

3.1. Numerical modelling

The nonlinear finite element program ADAPTIC [16 ] which accounts for material and geometric nonlinearities is used for the analysis of the composite frames. The accuracy of the program in modelling the response of steel and composite structures has been extensively validated in previous studies (e.g. [ 17–22 ]). For the steel columns, four cubic elasto-plastic elements (cbp2 ) [ 17 ] are utilised. The cbp2 elements account for the spread of plasticity across the section, using a fibre approach, as well as along the length using Gaussian sections in conjunction with a cubic shape function. The same elements are used for the composite beams where two parallel lines of 18 cbp2 elements are considered at the centroids of the steel and concrete constituent parts, as illustrated in Fig. 2 . Composite action is developed by introducing link elements (lnk2) with rigid properties connecting the steel and concrete line elements. A rigid connection is considered on the assumption that a sufficiently high degree of shear connection is present such that the influence of slip between the steel

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

1805

et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819 1805 Fig. 2. Modelling of composite beams. beam

Fig. 2. Modelling of composite beams.

beam and the slab on the response is not significant. It should be noted however that the degree of shear connection may need to be notably higher than that implied by a theoretical full-connection (i.e. 100% shear connection) in order to achieve these idealised conditions. In a recent study [23 ] in which composite beams were modelled with nonlinear springs representing a range between 50% and 150% shear connection, it was observed that only with 150% or more can the inelastic properties be reasonably represented by a rigid connection idealisation. Analytical simulations of experimental studies carried out on a full-scale composite frame [ 24 ] designed to Eurocode 8 also indicated a discrepancy of less than 3% on the response when the composite beams were modelled using the actual shear connection or with a rigid idealisation. Whilst low and moderate levels of shear connection are not recommended for seismic-resisting composite systems [ 13 ], due to the susceptibility of the connectors to low-cycle fatigue, it is important to emphasise that the slip between the slab and the steel beam may need to be incorporated in numerical models unless a very high degree of shear connection is adopted in design. For simplicity, the effective slab width was assumed as 1.25 m based on an estimate of the contra-flexure location and the provisions of EC4 for the sagging moment region. Although the provisions vary in EC4 and EC8 for sagging/hogging regions and for design/analysis, a sensitivity study indicated that these differences do not have a notable influence on the overall frame response [23 ]. Further discussion dealing with the issue of effective width in composite beams can be found elsewhere [25 ]. Special attention is given to the modelling of the panel zone regions, for which a modified frame approach [ 22 ] is adopted by assembling link (lnk2) and joint (jel2) elements. Fig. 3 shows the model for a typical external connection. Distinction is made between the main panel zone and the top part which is in contact with the slab. The contact behaviour between the composite slab and the column is also taken into account through the introduction of joint elements. Asymmetric curves are employed for panel zones located at external joints, whilst symmetric relationships are considered for internal panels. For the top panel, a linear elastic response is considered. On the other hand, a plastic curve is considered for the slab-contact joint. Under negative bending, the capacity at the contact region is based on the maximum yield force that can develop in the reinforcement bars whilst, under positive moment, the joint capacity is based on the maximum axial force that can be mobilised in the steel profile of the composite beam. The inclusion of a joint element to model slab interaction also

inclusion of a joint element to model slab interaction also Fig. 3. Numerical models for composite

Fig. 3. Numerical models for composite joints [22 ].

permits the consideration of partial-strength connection effects if necessary. For steel materials, a bilinear elasto-plastic cyclic model with strain-hardening (stl1) is adopted for both structural and reinforcing steel (Fig. 4 (a)). On the other hand, concrete nonlinear behaviour is accounted for through a uniaxial cyclic constitutive model ( con1 ) featuring both compressive and tensile softening (Fig. 4 (b)). In all the analyses performed in this study, the steel elastic modulus ( E ) and the strain- hardening coefficient (µ ) are assumed as 210 × 10 3 N /mm 2 and 0.5%. The yield strength values ( f y ) for structural steel and reinforcement bars are assumed as 275 and 500 N / mm 2 , respectively. For concrete, the values of E c 1 , E c 2 , f c 1 , and f c 2 are assumed as 15 × 10 3 , 8 × 10 3 , 30 and 18 N / mm 2 , respectively. It is also assumed that the residual strength in compression is reached at a concrete strain of 0.35%, whilst concrete behaviour in tension is ignored. For eigenvalue as well as time-history analysis, appropriate representation of the mass and damping characteristics of the structure is required. In the case of eigenvalue analysis, only concentrated mass elements (cnm2 ) are incorporated in the model and located at the thirds of the beam spans. For dynamic analysis, viscous damping, assumed as 5% of the critical, is also considered by inclusion of dashpot elements ( cnd2 ) at the same locations of mass elements. It is worth noting at this point that discrete modelling of the panel zone has an influence on the stiffness, and in turn on the natural periods of vibration. As noted before, for the reference frame, the fundamental period was found to be around 1.0 s, using a conventional centreline modelling approach. When the panel zone is realistically incorporated, with due account of the

1806

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819 Fig. 4. Constitutive models adopted for: (a) Steel

Fig. 4. Constitutive models adopted for: (a) Steel and (b) Concrete.

Constitutive models adopted for: (a) Steel and (b) Concrete. Fig. 5. M – Φ curves for

Fig. 5. M Φ curves for composite beam: (a) Sagging and (b) Hogging moment.

additional stiffness of the doubler plates, the period reduces to 0.88 s. On the other hand, if all the panel zone components within the discrete model are assumed to be infinitely rigid, the period reduces further to about 0.8 s.

3.2. Response criteria

In order to assess the inelastic seismic performance of composite frames, it is necessary to define specific criteria that can be associated with the yield and ultimate response levels. Various approaches and assumptions can be adopted to select comparative measures for this purpose. The notion of ‘significant yield’, which is typically associated with plastic hinge formation in framed structures, is employed in this investigation. Due to the more detailed strategy adopted in the representation of the composite members, it was decided to establish the local yield criteria based on fundamental cross- section data that ADAPTIC is able to provide. Instead of relating the plastic hinge formation to the achievement of a theoretical plastic moment, plastic hinges are assumed to form in the composite beam under negative moment when both extreme fibres of the steel profile reach the yield strain. On the other hand, a plastic hinge is assumed to form under positive bending when the axial capacity of the steel beam is

reached; this criterion is valid for ductile sections in which the plastic neutral axis is located in the slab. The two criteria described above are highlighted in Fig. 5 which depicts the moment-curvature relationship for the composite beam under sagging (positive) and hogging (negative) bending. The two curves clearly indicate that the selected criteria are closely related to the plastic moment ( M pl ) of the composite cross- section, and hence can be used in identifying the formation of a plastic hinge. For the steel columns, similar to beams in negative bending, a plastic hinge is assumed to form when both extreme cross-section fibres attain the yield strain as proposed in previous studies [26 ]. In the case of ultimate response, global criteria related to inter-storey drift are adopted, as in comparison with local failure considerations (such as local buckling of lower flange or concrete crushing in compression), they are found to govern the behaviour of the frames dealt with in this investigation. The study frames are designed and detailed such that all steel members satisfy cross-section requirements for the highest ductility class. Additionally, the amount of the additional slab reinforcement over supports reduces the extent of possible strain localisation in hogging moment. On the other hand, the composite beams in sagging moment satisfy limitations on the depth of the plastic neutral axis for achieving high ductility. It is

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

1807

also important to note that the idealised uniaxial representation of concrete behaviour makes the definition of a strain- based failure criterion in the slab unrealistic. Moreover, this investigation is concerned more with assessing the response in terms of global capacity considerations and plastic mechanisms rather than examining local failure conditions. It was therefore decided to assess ultimate conditions, where necessary, based on a limiting inter-storey drift which, in any case, is directly related to the ductility demand imposed on structural members.

A limiting value in the range of 2.0%–4.0% [ 27 , 28 ] is normally

adopted for framed structures, with 3.0% being commonly used (e.g. [9 , 29 ]). The numerical model described above is utilised in the following section to assess the nonlinear-static as well as dynamic response of the reference composite frame presented earlier. Subsequently, a number of parametric variations are considered to examine key behavioural and design issues.

4. Lateral seismic loading

4.1. Nonlinear-static response

The use of nonlinear-static, or pushover, analysis for seismic assessment and design has increased significantly in recent years. It can be employed to assess the overall capacity and stability, and to identify the likely plastic mechanisms and associated dissipative regions. The attractiveness of pushover

analysis stems mainly from its relative simplicity, in terms of modelling and computational demands as well as interpretation

of results, in comparison with nonlinear dynamic analysis [ 30 ].

The main purpose of this section is to examine the response

of the reference frame using ‘conventional’ forms of pushover

analysis, commonly referred to as the ‘triangular’ and ‘uniform’ distributions. The adequacy of the pushover idealisations in representing the inelastic response of the frame is then assessed in subsequent sections by comparison against the results of incremental dynamic analysis.

The nonlinear-static response of the reference frame is presented in Fig. 6 . The analysis is conducted by increasing the displacement at the top of the frame incrementally up to a global lateral drift of about 3% of the overall height. The results are shown for both the linear (triangular) and uniform patterns of the lateral load. Due to the regularity and simplicity of the structure, the triangular pattern represents closely a first mode- dominated response. On the other hand, the uniform pattern is expected to be important if higher modes contribute notably to the response or when significant inelastic concentrations occur. As shown in Fig. 6 (a), the uniform loading pattern results in higher stiffness and capacity in comparison with the triangular distribution, as expected. The inter-storey drifts in the frame

at yield (formation of first plastic hinge) as well as at ultimate

(achievement of 3% inter-storey drift) are depicted in Fig. 6 (b). The inter-storey drift distribution is almost uniform at the yield stage since the behaviour is largely elastic. At ultimate, however, lower stories exhibit significant inter-storey drifts compared to upper levels. The inelastic concentration is more pronounced for the uniform load pattern which forces a

more distinct soft-storey behaviour at the first storey. The inelastic distributions shown in Fig. 6 (b) are closely related to Fig. 6 (c) which illustrates the sequence and location of plastic hinges occurring in the beam and column members up to the attainment of the defined ultimate limit. Apart from the difference in response for the linear and uniform patterns, a number of important observations are noteworthy with reference to Fig. 6 . Firstly, the frame is shown in Fig. 6(a) to possess an actual capacity which is considerably higher than that assumed in design. A degree of overstrength is generally expected for framed structures [ 15 ], particularly when a relatively high behaviour factor is employed, since the member sizes are likely to be governed by the gravity loading scenario or by deformation-related limits (from inter- storey or stability checks). This overstrength effect becomes even more pronounced in the case of composite frames. One of the reasons for this is the relatively large spans that may be present in composite frames, hence increasing the dependence of beam sizes on the gravity loading design scenario. Moreover, composite frames exhibit significant levels of redistribution, in terms of the ratio between the ultimate base shear and that at yield (referred to as α u 1 in EC8), which contributes significantly to the global overstrength of the frame. Another important observation is related to the formation of plastic hinges predominately on one side of the beam spans, as illustrated in Fig. 6(c). This is caused by a combination of the influence of gravity moments (which can be significant in relatively large spans enabled by composite action), coupled with the difference between the plastic moment capacity of the cross-section under positive and negative moments which is characteristic of composite beams. Unless considerable levels of overstrength are provided to the columns to preclude the formation of column hinges at significant inelastic drifts, beam hinges may not form in the other side of the spans at ultimate, which is the case in the reference frame. This characteristic behaviour occurs even when the gravity loading is disregarded (as shown in Fig. 6(d)), thus indicating the significance of the asymmetry in the moment capacity of the beams. In relation to the above discussion, it is also important to note that whilst codes aim to achieve a ‘weak-beam/strong- column’ behaviour, a degree of column hinging is unavoidable in many cases unless large overstrength factors, well beyond those implied in codes, are adopted for column design. This is illustrated by the hinge patterns shown in Fig. 6 (c), and was also reported in previous studies on steel frames (e.g. [ 31]). In the inelastic range, the points of contra-flexure in members change and consequently the distribution of moments vary considerably from the idealised conditions assumed in design. Therefore, in terms of actual response, the purpose of meeting code requirements can perhaps be viewed as aiming to achieve relatively strong columns such that beam rather than column yielding predominates in several stories. Further discussion of these capacity design issues is presented later on in this paper. In order to examine the general validity of nonlinear- static procedures for assessing the overall seismic response of composite moment frames in further parametric and sensitivity studies, the pushover results of the reference frame are

1808

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819 Fig. 6. Reference structure: (a) Pushover curve, (b)

Fig. 6. Reference structure: (a) Pushover curve, (b) Inter-storey drifts, (c) Hinge formation for different load patterns and (d) Hinge formation for case without gravity loads.

compared with those from dynamic analysis in subsequent sections. To achieve a realistic basis for this comparison, careful attention is given to the selection and scaling of the time-history records in relation to the code-spectrum assumed in design.

4.2. Input for time-history analysis

A number of difficulties arise when choosing specific records for dynamic analysis, particularly in cases where seismic hazard studies are not available. In general, two

different criteria for record selection can be employed. One consists of choosing the records according to strong-motion parameters and the other is based on geophysical criteria. The search based on strong-motion parameters consists of finding records that have similar shape to the response spectrum provided by the code, obtained for a site with similar characteristics. An efficient procedure may consist, for example, of calculating the average root-mean-square deviation ( D rms ) of the spectrum of the tentative record

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

Table 1 Selected records and scaling factors

1809

EQ ID

Earthquake

Date

Country

Magnitude ( M w )

Distance (km)

Soil type

PGA ( g )

Scaling factor

CLUC

Campano Lucano

23/11/1980

Italy

6.9

10

Rock

0.0599

6.0

MHILL

Morgan Hill

24/04/1984

US

6.5

28

Stiff

0.0340

10.0

LDRS

Landers

28/06/1992

US

7.3

30

Stiff

0.1351

2.3

NRDG

Northridge

17/01/1994

US

6.7

31

Stiff

0.0732

5.0

CHCH

Chi-Chi

20/09/1999

Taiwan

7.6

39

Stiff

0.4145

1.1

TMRN

Taumaranui

05/01/1973

New Zealand

6.6

65

Rock

0.0358

10.0

HMINE

Hector Mine

16/10/1999

US

7.1

61

Rock

0.0568

5.3

from the target design spectrum. Alternatively, spectrum- compatible artificial records may be generated from white noise. This latter technique however tends to create unrealistic records both in terms of frequency, phase content, number of cycles and duration of motion [32 ]. On the other hand, for situations where the site is well characterised in seismological terms by either a deterministic or probabilistic seismic hazard assessment, then one or more earthquake scenarios can be established. Accordingly, the fault mechanisms and the ranges of magnitudes and fault distances of the earthquakes affecting the site are known [33 ]. In this case, the selection can be conducted by searching a strong-motion database for records that match those geophysical parameters. The selection of records is carried out herein by combining the two criteria discussed above. The records are selected such that they correspond to the shape of the code-spectrum employed (Type 1) as well satisfy the seismological criteria inferred by this choice. Seven records, with the lowest D rms from the target code-spectrum, were sought for this study from the strong-motion database available at Imperial College, by imposing the following conditions: (i) moment magnitudes ( M w ) larger than 6 since Spectrum Type 1 corresponds to high magnitude events [ 34 ]; (ii) records involving near-fault or forward directivity effects are avoided; (iii) rock or stiff soil sites, for consistency with the soil type assumed in design; (iii) PGA larger than 0 .03 g , to avoid applying unrealistically high scaling factors. The duration was not specifically considered since the model structures do not exhibit significant degradation effects. Records with forward directivity effects were not considered although it should be noted that they can pose a high damage potential to flexible structures [35 ]. However, these types of records have been rarely observed in Europe with the only relevant case recorded during the 1995 Aegion earthquake in Greece [ 36 ]. The seven records selected are listed in Table 1 together with the scaling factors adopted in order to have a good fit with the code-spectrum for the period range of interest, which in this case is considered to be between 0.8 and 2.4 s. The response spectra, for 5% damping, for all seven records as well as the target design spectrum are shown in Fig. 7 (a). The selection was then followed by another adjustment process for matching the records to the target design spectrum, based on the introduction of wavelets to the acceleration time series [ 37 ]. For this purpose, a modified version [38 ] of the program RSPMATCH [39 ] was employed. The modified program incorporates new wavelet types that avoid the need for baseline corrections and permit adjustment for multiple

for baseline corrections and permit adjustment for multiple Fig. 7. Response spectra of the selected records

Fig. 7. Response spectra of the selected records (all normalised to PGA) and target design spectrum (EC8-Type 1): (a) Initial records, (b) Wavelet-adjusted.

damping levels. The correction with RSPMATCH2005 is performed in two steps. In the first step, each record is modified in order to match the target spectrum within the period range between 0 and 1 s. In the second step, wavelets are introduced in the time series in order to match the target spectrum for the whole period range, i.e. between 0 and 4 s. A maximum tolerance of 5% for the mismatch between the record spectrum and the target spectrum is defined. The response spectra for the final adjusted records as well as the target spectrum are shown in Fig. 7 (b). On the other

1810

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819 (a) CLUC (before adjustment). (b) CLUC (after adjustment).

(a) CLUC (before adjustment).

30 (2008) 1802–1819 (a) CLUC (before adjustment). (b) CLUC (after adjustment). (c) MHILL (after adjustment).

(b) CLUC (after adjustment).

(a) CLUC (before adjustment). (b) CLUC (after adjustment). (c) MHILL (after adjustment). (e) NRDG (after adjustment).

(c) MHILL (after adjustment).

(b) CLUC (after adjustment). (c) MHILL (after adjustment). (e) NRDG (after adjustment). (d) LDRS (after adjustment).

(e) NRDG (after adjustment).

(c) MHILL (after adjustment). (e) NRDG (after adjustment). (d) LDRS (after adjustment). (f) CHCH (after adjustment).

(d) LDRS (after adjustment).

(e) NRDG (after adjustment). (d) LDRS (after adjustment). (f) CHCH (after adjustment). (g) TMRN (after adjustment).

(f) CHCH (after adjustment).

(d) LDRS (after adjustment). (f) CHCH (after adjustment). (g) TMRN (after adjustment). (h) HMINE (after adjustment).

(g) TMRN (after adjustment).

(f) CHCH (after adjustment). (g) TMRN (after adjustment). (h) HMINE (after adjustment). Fig. 8. Earthquake records

(h) HMINE (after adjustment).

Fig. 8. Earthquake records adopted in the analysis.

hand, the acceleration time-histories for the final adjusted records are shown in Fig. 8 . It is worth mentioning that the ground motion characteristics, as well as the acceleration and velocity time series, are not significantly affected by the wavelet adjustment. For example, this is illustrated in Fig. 8(a) and (b) which depict the acceleration record of CLUC before and after adjustment, respectively. However, some differences can occur in the displacement series in some cases, where a reduction in the number of ground displacement cycles is observed. This

situation develops in cases where the wavelet modification algorithm requires several iterations to adjust the record.

4.3. Dynamic response

Using the seven modified records described in the previous section, incremental dynamic analysis [ 40 ] was performed for the reference frame. Each of the seven records was applied with increasing ground motion intensity, resulting in over 100

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

1811

et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819 1811 Fig. 9. Time-history results vs pushover curves.

Fig. 9. Time-history results vs pushover curves.

analyses. In this study, the intensity measure was considered as the spectral acceleration at the fundamental period and, for each analysis, the base shears as well as global and inter-storey drifts were examined. A large amount of data was obtained from the dynamic analysis hence, for brevity, only results which are considered to be of direct relevance to the issues addressed in this paper are discussed below. The overall dynamic response is compared in Fig. 9 to that obtained from pushover analysis, with both linear and uniform patterns. The response is presented in terms of base shear versus maximum drift at the top of the frame. A special procedure is required to extract these results from the output of the dynamic analysis since the maximum displacement does not necessarily coincide with the time corresponding to the peak base shear. As suggested in previous studies [ 41 ], the maximum displacement was matched with the peak base shear within a specified time interval, for which a value of ± 0.5 s was found to produce consistent results. Fig. 9 indicates relatively low dispersion between the results from the seven earthquakes, which is clearly aided by the record-selection and spectrum-matching procedures described before. More importantly, the plot reveals relatively good correlation with the pushover results, particularly for the linear pattern case. As shown in the figure, the average of the time- history results is more closely related to the linear pattern for most of the response range, except perhaps at significant drift levels when inelastic deformations may tend to concentrate in lower storeys. In contrast, the uniform pattern provides more of an envelope of the global behaviour rather than a realistic representation of the mean level of dynamic response. Pushover analysis using a linear triangular pattern of loading also provides better correlation with time-history results in terms of inter-storey drifts. For example, Fig. 10 depicts the distribution of the maximum inter-storey drifts corresponding to a top displacement of about 0.15 m, as this corresponds approximately to average inter-storey drifts in-between yield and ultimate. The same procedure adopted for extracting the base shear versus top drift results was also used in this case to obtain the inter-storey drifts corresponding to the specified level of global deformation. The plot shows that the pushover

of global deformation. The plot shows that the pushover Fig. 10. Inter-storey drifts for 0.15 m

Fig. 10. Inter-storey drifts for 0.15 m global drift (time-history, linear and uniform pushover).

m global drift (time-history, linear and uniform pushover). Fig. 11. IDA curves of maximum base shear

Fig. 11. IDA curves of maximum base shear for control structure.

analysis with triangular loading pattern is more closely related to the mean of the time-history analyses. On the other hand, the uniform pattern idealisation tends to overestimate the inter- storey drifts at lower stories and to underestimate the demand at upper levels. The maximum base shears and top frame drift obtained from the incremental dynamic analysis are depicted in Fig. 11 and Fig. 12, respectively. These are shown in relation to the scaled spectral acceleration corresponding to the fundamental period of vibration and 5% damping, i.e. S a ( T 1 , 5%). Whilst the maximum base shears do not show considerable variation for the various records, the dispersion of global drifts increases with higher seismic intensity as the level of inelastic deformations becomes more significant. More importantly, as illustrated by Fig. 12 , the peak top displacement is largely proportional to the seismic intensity. This suggests the general validity of the ‘equal displacement approximation’ rule commonly adopted in several seismic codes, including EC8, for the structure under consideration. It should be noted however that if the response is assessed on the basis of individual

1812

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

Table 2 Summary of parameters considered and section sizes adopted

Study

Designation Remarks

Gravity loading design

 

Seismic design

 

Primary

Secondary

External

Internal

External

Internal

GC *

beams

beams

columns

columns

columns

columns

Reference

CREF

IPE 500

IPE 330

HEB 300

HEB 450

HEB 340

HEB 450

c

frame

 

CR4

q = 4 Redistribution No doubler plates PGA = 0 . 15 g PGA = 0. 50 g

IPE 500

IPE 330

HEB 300

HEB 450

HEB 500

HEB 500

a

CRED30

IPE 400

IPE 330

HEB 300

HEB 450

HEB 300

HEB 450

c

Design

considerations

CPZ

IPE 500

IPE 330

HEB 300

HEB 450

HEB 340

HEB 450

c

CSI015

IPE 500

IPE 330

HEB 300

HEB 450

HEB 340

HEB 450

c

CSI050

IPE 500

IPE 330

HEB 300

HEB 450

HEB 550

HEB 600

d

CTB3

3 m spacing 12 m spacing 6 m span

IPE 300

HEA 220

HEA 240

HEA 320

HEA 360

c

Spacing and

CTB12

IPE 550

IPE 400

HEB 400

HEB 650

HEB 400

HEB 650

b

geometry

CPB6

IPE 330

IPE 330

HEB 260

HEB 320

HEB 450

HEB 500

c

CSTOR3

3-storey frame IPE 500

IPE 330

HEB 260

HEB 300

HEB 260

HEB 320

a

Governing Criterion: a. seismic strength demand, b. gravity loading scenario, c. stability coefficient, d. serviceability drift.

c. stability coefficient, d. serviceability drift. Fig. 12. IDA curves of maximum top displacement for control

Fig. 12. IDA curves of maximum top displacement for control structure.

records, rather than the mean or median, then significant departure from the equal-displacement approximation would be observed. This is illustrated in Fig. 12 by noting, for example, the drift response of the structure under the TMRN record with increasing seismic intensity. After examining the various approaches for applying the lateral seismic loading, subsequent parts of this paper investigate the influence of other salient geometrical and design parameters on the response. As discussed above, pushover analysis based on the linear pattern was shown to be in good agreement with the average results obtained from the dynamic analysis. Accordingly, and given the relative simplicity of performing and interpreting pushover analysis coupled with the comparative nature of parametric and sensitivity studies, it was decided to limit the discussions presented in subsequent sections to results from pushover analysis with triangular load patterns.

5. Design parameters and considerations

The design process of a composite moment frame involves several assumptions and choices that can have a direct influence

on the performance. Using the reference frame described before as a basis, a number of variations to several design parameters and assumptions are considered in this section

in order to highlight important behavioural implications. The

modifications carried out to the reference frame are summarised in Table 2 , together with the resulting member sizes and

governing criteria. In all cases, only one design parameter or assumption is varied within each specific frame. It should be noted that, where possible, it was decided in most cases to retain the beams sizes based on gravity design and adjust column sizes

to satisfy the various design criteria.

A significant number of parameters were varied but, for

brevity, only those which are thought to provide some insight into key aspects of the behaviour are described herein. This section deals with parameters related to design, for a structure of the same geometry. In particular, focus is given to the behaviour factor, moment redistribution, panel zone design and seismic intensity. On the other hand, Section 6 is concerned with variations to the structural configuration.

5.1. Behaviour factor

The recommended values for the behaviour factor ‘q ’ in EC8 are, in principle, intended as upper limits. However, in practice, the recommended behaviour factor is often used as

a default with a view to exploiting available ductility and

energy dissipation capabilities. It is important to note, however, that lower behaviour factors may be adopted and such a

choice could often be more rational [15 ] particularly in low- to-moderate seismicity regions.

In order to examine some of the issues involved in using

a lower behaviour factor, the design of the reference frame

(CREF) is modified (CR4) in accordance with ‘q ’ of 4 (DCM) instead of 6.5 (DCH). This enables the use of Class 2 rather than Class 1 cross-sections if necessary but, more importantly, the change in ‘q ’ results in the need for larger column sizes, as indicated in Table 2 , in order to satisfy the higher lateral strength requirement. As indicated in Fig. 13(a), this leads to an increase in the lateral capacity of the frame in comparison

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

1813

et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819 1813 Fig. 13. Influence of design considerations on

Fig. 13. Influence of design considerations on lateral response: (a) Pushover curves, (b) Inter-storey drifts.

with the reference structure. Also, as depicted in Fig. 13 (b), due to the increased column-to-beam strength in the modified frame, an improved distribution of inter-storey drift is obtained, which is directly related to enhanced hinge formation and reduced second-order effects. This is also supported by the hinge pattern shown in Fig. 15(b), which shows more extensive hinge formation in upper stories at ultimate in comparison with the reference frame. In general, it should be noted that the influence of the choice of behaviour factor on the behaviour is inter-related to several design parameters and criteria. A change in behaviour factor can clearly lead to a modification of member sizes, and hence directly influence the stiffness and capacity as well as the overstrength and inelastic performance of the frame. However, for a particular frame configuration, these effects are largely dependent on a number of other parameters including the level of seismicity, and the second-order design criteria such as the stability coefficient in EC8.

5.2. Moment redistribution

Due to the relatively large spans often associated with composite floors, the beam sizes are normally governed by

the gravity design rather than the seismic loading combination. Consequently, it may be beneficial to make use of the redistribution ability of composite beams in the gravity design situation to reduce the required beam size. The reduction in beam size can be significant in composite beams due to the characteristic difference between the positive and negative moment capacity of the cross-section. To examine the effect of gravity moment redistribution, the design of the reference frame (CREF) is modified (CRED30). In this case, the gravity design is based on a 30% redistribution in accordance with the allowance in Eurocode 4 [ 12 ]. This results in a reduction in beam size from IPE 500 to IPE 400. However, this is also accompanied by a reduction in stiffness and capacity which, depending on the seismic intensity and behaviour factor as well as other design parameters, may still be adequate. For the frame under consideration (CRED30), although the reduced beam size enables a reduction in column sizes from a capacity-design viewpoint, satisfaction of the stability criterion (θ ) necessitates the use of at least the same column sections. Fig. 13 (a) includes the pushover response of CRED30 in comparison with CREF, whilst the inter-storey drift distributions at yield and ultimate are shown in Fig. 13(b). On the other hand, the hinge pattern at ultimate is depicted in Fig. 15 (c). Whereas the stiffness and capacity of CRED30 are clearly lower than the reference structure, the overall seismic response is more favourable due to the more dominant beam yielding as demonstrated in Figs. 13(b) and 15(c). This is facilitated by the lower beam-to-column capacity ratio attained in CRED30. In general, the benefits of employing gravity moment redistribution depend on the specific case but it is an issue that merits consideration within the design process.

5.3. Panel zone design

As noted previously, the column panel zone in the reference frame was designed according to the provisions of EC8 which do not imply significant yielding within this component. To satisfy code requirements, each web panel was strengthened with two doubler plates, as described before. Other seismic codes (e.g. [ 42 ]) explicitly allow partial yielding in panel zones in recognition of their inherent ductility and in order to alleviate excessive demands on the plastic hinges in the beams. It was deemed of interest therefore to examine the response of a modified frame (CPZ) which has the same characteristics as the reference case (CREF) but without strengthening the web panels. The lateral response of frame CPZ is included in Fig. 13(a), whilst the drift distributions over the height are given in Fig. 13(b). On the other hand, the hinge pattern and sequence for this case are shown in Fig. 15 (d). In comparison with CREF, it is evident that the flexibility and yielding of the panel zone leads to a significant reduction in the overall stiffness and capacity of the frame. The panel zones in CPZ have an average yield capacity of about 35% of the beam which results in a reduction of about 30% in the overall frame capacity. Importantly, this also results in a highly stable plastic

1814

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

mechanism involving only the panel zones and the base of the columns, as shown in Fig. 15(d), and hence more uniform inter- storey distribution over the height (Fig. 13 (b)). Despite the stable inelastic behaviour of panel zones, the rationale behind limiting energy dissipation within this component in EC8 is based on merited concerns. The local bending of column flanges associated with inelastic shear deformations of the panel may cause excessive local strains in the welded connection components, which can precipitate early failure as suggested by several researchers [43 , 44 ]. On the other hand, allowing yielding in panel zones can alleviate inelastic demands on the beams and lead to favourable overall inelastic frame response. Accordingly, there are also benefits from allowing a degree of yielding of panel zones, as implied in recent design documents [45 ]. More detailed examination of this issue is beyond the scope of this investigation but it is clearly an area that deserves further assessment.

5.4. Seismic intensity

In Eurocode 8, the seismic intensity is represented primarily through the design peak ground acceleration (PGA). In order to assess the influence of seismic intensity on the design of the reference frame (CREF), for which a PGA of 0.30 g was assumed, two variations are considered (CSI015 and CSI050) corresponding to PGA of 0.15 g and 0.50 g , respectively. Other design parameters and criteria used for the reference frame are retained. In the case of CSI015, the design process results in identical member sizes to those used in CREF. This is expected since the criterion governing the design in both cases is the stability coefficient (θ ) which, as evident by close observation of Eq. (1) , is independent of the seismic intensity. Since the design base shear for CSI015 is half of that in CREF, whilst the member sizes are identical, the direct implication is that the frame overstrength is doubled. Clearly, this is a consequence of employing a high ‘q ’ factor in a case of relatively low seismic demand, leading to undue levels of overstrength as reported in previous studies on framed structures [15 ]. For CSI050, the increase in PGA changes the governing criterion in design. Similar effects can also be observed when the soil classification is changed. In CSI050, the sizes of the columns are governed by the inter-storey serviceability drift limit assumed as 0.75% of the storey height. The inter-storey drift increases with PGA, unlike the stability coefficient, and becomes more critical. If the inter-storey drift limit of 0.75% is relaxed to 1.0%, the seismic demand on the columns becomes the governing factor. In comparison with CREF, the larger column sizes lead to relatively higher stiffness and capacity (Fig. 14(a)), as well as improved distribution of drift and hinge formation over height (Fig. 14 (b) and Fig. 15 (f), respectively). Moreover, as expected, the level of global frame overstrength is significantly lower than that in CREF.

6. Frame spacing and geometry

Apart from the design parameters and considerations discussed in the previous section, the frame configuration can

in the previous section, the frame configuration can Fig. 14. Influence of seismic intensity on lateral

Fig. 14. Influence of seismic intensity on lateral response: (a) Pushover curves, (b) Inter-storey drifts.

also have a direct influence on the seismic response. In this section, a number of geometric parameters related to the frame configuration are considered, as summarised in Table 2. These include the frame spacing, primary beam span and the number of stories.

6.1. Transverse spacing

Depending on the structural plan arrangement of the building, the frame spacing may be considerably different from that assumed in the reference structure selected. This, in turn, would have a direct effect on the level of gravity loading imposed on the primary beam which forms part of the composite moment frame. In order to examine the influence of these possible variations, two additional cases are considered, in which the frame spacing is changed from the 9.0 m assumed in the reference frame (CREF) to 3.0 m (CTB3) and 12.0 m (CTB12). In the case of CTB3, and with reference to Fig. 1 (a), the slab is assumed to span directly onto the moment frames. As shown in Table 2 , for CTB12 the sizes of beams and columns are larger than those for CREF, as these are governed by the gravity loading conditions. On the other

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

1815

et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819 1815 Fig. 15. Sequence of hinge formation for:

Fig. 15. Sequence of hinge formation for: (a) CREF, (b) CR4, (c) CRED30, (d) CPZ, (e) CSI015, (f) CSI050.

hand, for CTB3 smaller member sizes are required due to the considerably lower gravity loading present, but the column sizes are ultimately governed by the stability criterion. As shown in Fig. 16 (a), the resulting response, in terms of stiffness and capacity, reflects the difference in member sizes between the three frames. Due to the high column-to-beam capacity ratio in CTB3, it provides a favourable distribution of plasticity over the height as shown in Fig. 16(b), as well dominant beam hinging as indicated in Fig. 18 (a). However, the significant increase in column sizes from that required for gravity loading, in order to satisfy the stability criterion rather than seismic demands, results in relatively high frame overstrength in the case of CTB3.

6.2. Primary beam span

In order to examine the influence of the span of the beam on the seismic response of the composite frame, the beam span is modified from 9.0 m in the reference frame (CREF) to 6.0 m (CPB6). Due to the shorter length and reduced gravity loading, the member sizes required to resist the gravity situation are smaller than in CREF as listed in Table 2. However, the column sizes are ultimately governed by the second-order stability criterion. The adopted design procedure therefore leads to larger column sizes in CPB6 compared to CREF. The response of CPB6 in comparison with CREF is shown in Fig. 17(a). The reduction in beam size leads to lower stiffness

1816

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819 Fig. 16. Influence of frame spacing on lateral

Fig. 16. Influence of frame spacing on lateral response: (a) Pushover curves, (b) Inter-storey drifts.

and capacity in CPB6. However, as expected, the higher column-to-beam capacity ratio results in a more favourable inelastic distribution over the height as shown in Fig. 17 (b). This is also illustrated in Fig. 18(c), indicating an ‘ideal’ hinge formation in the beams. It is interesting to note that, in this case, the smaller beam spans and the prevention of column hinging permit the formation of hinges at both sides of most members. Clearly, the lower beam span in CPB6 enables the use of smaller beam cross-section hence facilitating a weak-beam/strong-column design within practical size ranges. However, the observations made above in relation to inelastic response characteristics could obviously change if the designer decides to increase beam sizes, rather than column sizes only, in order to satisfy the stability criterion.

6.3. Number of stories

Another variation of the reference frame (CREF) is considered whereby the number of storeys is reduced to three (CSTOR3). This case is selected to highlight an issue which becomes particularly important in the case of frames with large beam spans and/or low number of stories [ 15 ,46 ]. For CSTOR3, the relatively low overall gravity loading applied to the ground

relatively low overall gravity loading applied to the ground Fig. 17. Influence of beam span and

Fig. 17. Influence of beam span and number of stories on lateral response: (a) Pushover curves, (b) Inter-storey drifts.

floor columns means that the stability coefficient does not govern the size of the column and it is instead determined by seismic strength demands. In principle, the capacity design rules for columns should ensure that relatively strong columns are provided such that more dominant beam hinging occurs. However, direct implementation of the application rule of Eq. (3) in isolation can lead to unsatisfactory performance. Figs. 17(a), (b) and 18 (d) depict the pushover response, inter-storey drift and plastic hinge pattern, respectively, obtained for CSTOR3. Clearly, the column sizes are inadequate in this case to prevent the formation of an undesirable column mechanism. This is largely an implication of Eq. (3) which in its suggested form ignores the influence of gravity loading in calculating the overstrength parameter . As a result, is underestimated considerably for cases in which the gravity moment in the beams ( M Ed , G ) constitutes

a significant proportion of the total moment ( M Ed ) . This is

often the case in composite configurations as these typically

incorporate relatively large beam spans. Although this issue

is not necessarily related to the number of stories, the limits

imposed on the stability coefficient lessen its effect on the required column sizes except in low-rise frames. In fact, a more

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

1817

et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819 1817 Fig. 18. Sequence of hinge formation for

Fig. 18. Sequence of hinge formation for (a) CTB3, (b) CTB12, (c) CPB6, (d) CSTOR3.

realistic representation of the overstrength parameter would necessitate a modification of the code-specified relationship to ( M pl , Rd M Ed , G )/ M Ed , E . Such modification results in a significantly higher value of for CSTOR3, leading to column sizes which are at least as large as those in CREF, hence preventing the formation of a storey mechanism. The increase in column sizes would evidently improve the seismic performance of the structure and, importantly, it would have an insignificant influence on the final cost of the structure. Alternatively, instead of the suggested modification, the code rules could be replaced by (or used in conjunction with) other capacity design measures.

7. Concluding remarks

This paper assesses the inelastic seismic performance of composite steel/concrete moment-resisting frames designed according to the provisions of Eurocode 8. After discussing the design procedures and assumptions, the numerical models and response criteria adopted in this investigation are described. The analysis accounts for material and geometric nonlinearities and the models incorporate detailed representation of steel and concrete elements as well as the panel zone components. A number of studies are then carried out in order to examine the influence of several key loading, geometric and design parameters on the performance of composite moment frames.

The nonlinear-static behaviour of a typical composite frame is firstly assessed by comparing the response obtained from triangular and uniform pushover loading patterns. The validity of adopting nonlinear-static approaches for this type of structure is evaluated by comparison against the results of incremental dynamic analysis. For this purpose, seven natural earthquake acceleration records, which are selected and adjusted for compatibility with the design spectrum, are utilised. It is shown that the results of the dynamic time- history analysis are closely related to the nonlinear-static response adopting triangular loading pattern, following the trends observed in other frame types of regular configurations. The suitability of pushover analysis with triangular loading, in comparison with the uniform pattern, is supported by the overall structural response as well as local inter-storey drift distributions. A degree of global overstrength is normally expected in framed structures, particularly when relatively high behaviour factors are adopted, since member sizes are often governed by gravity considerations or by deformation-related criteria. This overstrength becomes even more pronounced in composite frames, due in-part to the typically large spans which increase the dependence of beam sizes on gravity loading conditions. The frames examined in this study exhibited strength levels consistently exceeding four-fold the assumed design base shear. The global overstrength is also contributed to by the significant

1818

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

redistribution in terms of the ultimate-to-yield resistance ratio, referred to as α u 1 in EC8. This ratio was higher than 1.5 in all the study frames (which is well above the recommended code value of 1.3) provided that local storey mechanisms are prevented and a realistic level of gravity loading is considered. It is shown in this paper that several design parameters and assumptions have direct implications on the inelastic behaviour of composite frames, as assessed through the overall lateral response, inter-storey drift distribution and plastic hinge patterns. In particular, the choice of behaviour factor in relation to the seismic intensity, the incorporation of moment redistribution under gravity conditions, and the panel zone effects are all issues that merit careful consideration in design. It is also shown that a number of geometric parameters, related to the structural configuration, including frame spacing and beam span, have a significant influence on the behaviour. The plastic hinge patterns observed in the study frames provide useful insight into the behaviour. In most cases, except in frames with relatively short beam spans or when significant panel zone yielding is permitted, hinges form primarily on one side of the beam spans under pushover loading. This effect is particularly significant in composite frames due to the characteristic asymmetry in beam cross-section capacity, coupled with the influence of gravity moments. More importantly, local storey mechanisms did not occur in the study frames except in the case of the three-storey structure. This undesirable performance, to which low-rise and/or large span configurations are particularly vulnerable, highlights the need for careful interpretation or modification of the suggested capacity design provisions.

References

[1] Broderick BM, Elnashai AS. Seismic response of composite frames:

Response criteria and input motion. Engineering Structures 1996;18(9):

696–706.

[2] Leon RT. Analysis and design problems for PR composite frames subjected to seismic loads. Engineering Structures 1998;20(4–6):364–71. [3] Spacone E, El-Tawil S. Nonlinear analysis of steel-concrete composite structures: State of the art. Journal of Structural Engineering 2004;130(2):

159–68.

[4] Leon RT, Hajjar JF, Gustafson MA. Seismic response of composite moment-resisting connections. I: Performance. Journal of Structural Engineering 1998;124(8):868–76. [5] Hajjar JF, Leon RT, Gustafson MA, Shield CK. Seismic response of composite moment-resisting connections. II: Behaviour. Journal of Structural Engineering 1998;124(8):877–85. [6] Bursi OS, Caldara R. Composite substructures with partial shear connection: Low cycle fatigue behaviour and analysis issues. In: 12th world conference on earthquake engineering. 2000. [7] Plumier A, Doneux C, Bouwkamp JG, Plumier C. Slab design in connection zones of composite frames. In: Proceedings of the 11th ECEE conference. 1998. [8] Elnashai AS, Broderick BM. Seismic response of composite frames:

Calculation of behaviour factors. Engineering Structures 1996;18(9):

707–23.

[9] Thermou GE, Elnashai AS, Plumier A, Doneux C. Seismic design and performance of composite frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2004;60(1):31–57. [10] CEN. EN 1998-1, Eurocode 8: Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures, Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization; 2004.

[11] CEN. EN 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures — Part 1.1:

General rules and rules for buildings, Brussels: European Committee for Standardization; 2005. [12] CEN. EN 1994-1-1, Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures — Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings. Brussels:

European Committee for Standardization; 2004. [13] Bursi OS, Sun FF, Postal S. Non-linear analysis of steel-concrete composite frames with full and partial shear connection subjected to seismic loads. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2005;61(1):

67–92.

[14] CEN. EN 1991-1-1, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures — Part 1.1:

General actions — Densities, self-weight, imposed loads for buildings, Brussels: European Committee for Standardization; 2002. [15] Elghazouli AY. Assessment of capacity design approaches for steel framed structures. Journal of Steel Structures 2005;5(5):465–75. [16] Izzuddin BA. Nonlinear dynamic analysis of framed structures. Ph.D. thesis. University of London; 1991. [17] Izzuddin BA, Elnashai AS. Adaptive space frame analysis. 2 — A distributed plasticity approach. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers — Structures and Buildings 1993;99(3):317–26. [18] Elnashai AS, Elghazouli AY. Seismic behaviour of semi-rigid steel frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1994;29:149–74. [19] Song L, Izzuddin BA, Elnashai AS, Dowling PJ. An integrated adaptive environment for fire and explosion analysis of steel frames — Part 1:

Analytical models. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2000;53(1):

63–85.

[20] Izzuddin BA, Song L, Elnashai AS, Dowling PJ. An integrated adaptive environment for fire and explosion analysis of steel frames — Part II:

Verification and application. Journal of Constructional Steel Research

2000;53(1):87–111.

[21] Elghazouli AY, Izzuddin BA. Realistic modeling of composite and reinforced concrete floor slabs under extreme loading: Verification and application. Journal of Structural Engineering 2004;130(12):1985–96. [22] Castro JM, Elghazouli AY, Izzuddin BA. Modelling of the panel zone in steel and composite moment frames. Engineering Structures 2005;27(1):

129–44.

[23] Castro JM. Seismic behaviour of composite moment-resisting frames. Ph.D. thesis. University of London; 2006. [24] Bursi OS, Caramelli S, Fabbrocino G, Molina J, Salvatore W, Taucer F, Zandonini R. 3D full-scale seismic testing of a steel-concrete composite building at ELSA, Technical report EUR 21299 EN. Joint Research Centre; 2004. [25] Castro JM, Elghazouli AY, Izzuddin BA. Assessment of effective slab widths in composite beams. Journal of Constructional Steel Research

2007;63(10):1317–27.

[26] Elghazouli AY, Elnashai AS. Performance of composite steel/concrete members under earthquake loading: Parametric studies and design considerations. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 1993;

22(4):347–68.

[27] SEAOC. Vision 2000 — Performance based seismic engineering of buildings. Sacramento (CA): Structural Engineers Association of California; 1995. [28] FEMA. FEMA 356 — Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington (DC): Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2000. [29] Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS. Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings. Engineering Structures 2001;23(5):407–24. [30] Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Engineering Structures 1998;20(4-6):

452–64.

[31] Gupta A, Krawinkler H. Seismic demands for performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frame structures, John A. Blume earthquake engineering Center report No. 132. Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University; 1999. [32] Bommer JJ, Acevedo AB. The use of real earthquake accelerograms as input to dynamic analysis. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2004;8:

43–91.

A.Y. Elghazouli et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1802–1819

1819

Bommer JJ, Scott SG, Sarma SK. Hazard-consistent earthquake scenarios.

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2000;19(4):219–31. [34] Rey J, Faccioli E, Bommer JJ. Derivation of design soil coefficients (S) and response spectral shapes for Eurocode 8 using the European strong- motion database. Journal of Seismology 2002;6(4):547–55. [35] Alavi B, Krawinkler H. Behavior of moment-resisting frame structures subjected to near-fault ground motions. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2004;33(6):687–706. [36] Bouckovalas GD, Gazetas G, Papadimitriou AG. Geotechnical aspects of the 1995 Aegion, Greece, earthquake. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering. 1999. [37] Lilhanand K, Tseng W. Development and application of realistic earthquake time histories compatible with multiple-damping design spectra. In: Proceedings of the 9th world conference on earthquake engineering, vol. II. 1988. p. 819–1324.

[38]

[33]

Hancock J, Watson-Lamprey J, Abrahamson NA, Bommer JJ, Markatis A, McCoy E, et al. An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motion using wavelets. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2006;10(Special issue no. 1):67–89.

[39] Abrahamson NA. Non-stationary spectral matching. Seismological Research Letters 1992;63(1):30. [40] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2002;31(3):491–514. [41] Antoniou S, Pinho R. Advantages and limitations of adaptive and non-adaptive force-based pushover procedures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2004;8(4):497–522. [42] AISC. ANSI/AISC 341-05 — Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. Chicago (IL): American Institute of Steel Construction; 2005. [43] El-Tawil S, Vidarsson E, Mikesell T, Kunnath SK. Inelastic behaviour and design of steel panel zones. Journal of Structural Engineering 1999;

125(2):183–93.

[44] Krawinkler H, Bertero VV, Popov EP. Shear behavior of steel frame joints. Journal of the Structural Division (ASCE) 1975;101(11):2317–36. [45] FEMA. FEMA 350 — Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame buildings. Washington (DC): Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2000. [46] Elghazouli AY. Seismic design of steel structures to Eurocode 8. The Structural Engineer 2007;85(12):26–31.