00 voturi pozitive00 voturi negative

40 vizualizări10 paginiSep 30, 2014

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

40 vizualizări

00 voturi pozitive00 voturi negative

© All Rights Reserved

Sunteți pe pagina 1din 10

Finley A. Charney, Virginia Tech, U.S.A.

William M. Downs, Simpson Strong Tie, Inc., U.S.A.

ABSTRACT

Elastic and inelastic deformations in the panel zone of the beam-column joint

region of moment resisting frames are responsible for a very significant

portion of the lateral flexibility of such systems. This paper provides a brief

theoretical basis for computing panel zone deformations, and compares

results obtained from two simple mechanical models to each-other and to

those obtained using detailed finite element analysis. It is shown that the

simplest mechanical model, referred to as the Scissors model, produces

results that are comparable to those obtained from the more complex

mechanical model, and also correlates well with the results computed from

the detailed finite element model.

INTRODUCTION

The influence of panel zone deformations on the flexibility of steel moment resisting frames

is very significant. This is true for elastic response, and particularly for inelastic response

when yielding occurs in the panel zone. Structural analysis should always include such

deformations.

While the state of stress in the panel zone is extremely complex, the sources of deformation

can be divided into three parts: axial, flexural, and shear. For low to medium rise frames,

axial deformations are negligible, flexural deformations are minor but significant, and shear

deformations are dominant. This paper concentrates on the shear component of panel

zone deformation. See Downs (1) for a detailed discussion on modeling approaches for

axial and flexural deformations within the panel zone.

Mathematical modeling procedures for panel zone deformation are typically based on

simple mechanical analogs which consist of an assemblage of rigid links and rotational

springs. The principal challenge in the derivation of such models is the development of the

transformations from shear in the panel zone to rotation in the springs of the analog. Two

mechanical models were studied in the research reported herein. These are the

Krawinkler Model (2) and the Scissors Model. When properly used, the results obtained

from these models are essentially identical, even though the kinematics of the Krawinkler

model is significantly different than that of the Scissors model. Unfortunately the Scissors

model is often misused in practice because analysts tend to compute spring properties that

were derived for the Krawinkler model and use them in the Scissors model. A complete

description of the mechanical models is presented in the next section of this paper.

Results obtained from structures implementing the simple mechanical models were

compared with those computed from a detailed finite element model of a full beam-column

subassemblage. The detailed model was created using ABAQUS (3). Both elastic and

inelastic analysis was performed. It was found that good correlation was obtained between

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004 121

the mechanical models and the finite element model. The results from the finite element

model were also compared to experimental results obtained during the SAC Project (4, 5)

and reasonably good correlation was obtained. The detailed analysis is briefly described in

the second main part of this paper.

MECHANICS OF BEAM-COLUMN JOINT

A typical interior beam-column subassemblage of a moment resisting frame is shown in

figure 1. The subassemblage is in equilibrium under the loads shown if the moments at the

mid-span of the girders and mid-height of the columns are zero. It is assumed that size and

span of the girders on either side of the column are same, and that a single column section

is used over the full height. The girders are welded to the column flanges. A doubler plate

may be used to reinforce the panel zone.

Terms and represent the ratios of the effective depth of the column to the span length,

and the effective depth of the girder to the column height, respectively. The effective depth

of a section is defined as the distance between the centers of the flanges. Use of these

terms in lieu of the actual physical dimensions greatly simplifies the derivation of the

properties of the models.

L

L

H H

V

C

V

C

V

C

/ H

V

C

/ H

L

L

H H

V

C

V

C

V

C

/ H

V

C

/ H

L

L

H H

V

C

V

C

V

C

/ H

V

C

/ H

C

V H

L

C

V H

L

L

L

H H

V

C

V

C

V

C

/ H

V

C

/ H

L

L

H H

V

C

V

C

V

C

/ H

V

C

/ H

L

L

H H

V

C

V

C

V

C

/ H

V

C

/ H

C

V H

L

C

V H

L

C

V H

L

C

V H

L

Figure 1. Typical interior beam-column subassemblage.

Total subassemblage drift

The total drift in the subassemblage, , is defined as the lateral displacement of the top of

the column with respect to the bottom of the column under the load V

C

. Following the

procedure described by Charney (6), this drift may be divided into three components, one

for the column, one for the girder, and one for the panel zone.

P G C

+ + = (1)

The column and girder displacement components are due to axial, flexural and shear

deformations occurring in the clear span region of the respective sections. The panel

contribution to displacement may also be divided into axial, flexural, and shear components:

PV PF PA P

+ + = (2)

122 Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

As stated earlier, this paper concentrates on the development of the panel zone shear

component of subassemblage displacement. It should be noted that this component

includes localized bending in the flanges of the column, but bending through the depth of

the panel is represented by

PF

.

Panel zone participation in total subassemblage drift

If it is assumed that the moment in the girder at the face of the column is resisted entirely by

the flanges of the girder, it can be shown by simple statics that the horizontal shear force in

the panel zone is

) 1 (

=

C

P

V

V (3)

The corresponding shear stress in the panel is

P

C

P

H V

=

) 1 (

(4)

This shear stress is uniform throughout the volume of the panel zone. The term

P

, which

represents the volume of the panel zone, appears repeatedly in the following derivations.

To determine the panel zone contribution to subassemblage drift, equal and opposite unit

virtual forces are applied in lieu of the actual column shears V

C

. The shear stress in the

panel due to the unit virtual shear force is

P

H

=

) 1 (

1

(5)

The contribution of panel zone shear strain to subassemblage drift is obtained by integrating

the product of the real strains and the virtual stresses over the volume of the panel. The

uniformity of stress and strain over the volume of the panel simplifies the integration.

P

C

V

P

PV

G

H V

dV

G

= =

2 2

1

) 1 (

(6)

The Krawinkler model and the Scissors model must have the same panel zone shear

contribution to displacement as given by equation 6.

Panel zone shear strength

Research performed by Krawinkler (2) has shown that the strength of the panel zone

consists of two components; shear in the panel itself, and flexure in the column flanges.

The larger of these components is the panel zone shear, which is resisted by the web of the

column acting in unison with the doubler plate, if present. If it is assumed that the yield

stress in shear is 3 / 1 0.6 times the uniaxial yield stress and that the column and doubler

plate are made from the same material, the yield strength of the panel in shear is

H

F

Lt F V

P y

P y YP

= =

6 . 0

6 . 0 (7)

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004 123

The second component of strength arises from flexural yielding of the flanges of the column.

This phenomenon, which is most significant for W14 and W18 columns with very thick

flanges, has been observed from tests (2), and may be computed using the principle of

virtual displacements. The computed shear strength due to column flange yielding in the

joint region is

H

t b F

V

Cf Cf y

YF

2

8 1. =

(8)

where the 1.8 multiplier is a calibration factor based on test results.

Force-deformation response

The assumed force-deformation behavior of the beam column joint is illustrated in figure 2.

In the figure the deformation is the racking displacement over the height of the panel. The

moment-rotation aspect of figure 2 is used later.

Shear Displacement

Spring Rotation

Y

4

Y

4

Y

Shear, V

Moment, M

V

YP

M

YP

V

YF

M

YF

Panel

Flange

Total

V

YP

M

YP

H

H

Y

Figure 2. Force-deformation relationship for beam-column joint.

The total response is equal to the sum of the response of the panel and the column flanges.

Following Krawinkler (2) it is assumed that the flange component yields at four times the

yield deformation of the panel component. It should be noted that figure 2 shows that the

flange component of the resistance is effective immediately upon loading. Krawinkler

assumes that this component of resistance does not occur until the panel yields in shear.

We have used the relationship shown in the figure as it simplifies the implementation of the

mechanical models without compromising accuracy.

The Krawinkler and Scissors models must be proportioned such that yielding is consistent

with figure 2.

The Krawinkler model

The Krawinkler model is shown in figure 3. The model consists of four rigid links connected

at the corners by rotational springs. The springs at the lower left and upper right corners

have no stiffness, and thereby act as true hinges. The spring at the upper left is used to

represent panel zone shear resistance, and the spring at the lower right is used to represent

column flange bending resistance. A total of twelve nodes are required for the model (there

are two nodes at each corner). The number of degrees of freedom in the model depends

124 Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

on the use of nodal constraints or slaving. The minimum number of DOF required to model

the panel is four in a planar structure. The maximum is twenty-eight.

Rigid Link

Real

Hinge

Rotational Spring

for Panel Shear

Rotational Spring

for Column Flange

Bending

Figure 3. The Krawinkler model.

The properties of the springs in the Krawinkler model are easily computed in terms of the

physical properties. Looking at only the panel spring, for example, the moment in the spring

is equal to the panel shear times the height of the panel. (See the diagram at the right of

figure 2.) The rotation in the spring is equal to the shear displacement in the panel divided

by the panel height. Hence,

H V M

P K P

=

,

(9)

P

P

P

P

K P

G

H V

H Lt G

H V

= =

1

,

(10)

Note that the K subscript in the above expressions refers to the Krawinkler model.

The stiffness of the rotational spring representing the panel in the Krawinkler model is the

moment divided by the rotation;

P

K P

K P

K P

G

M

S = =

,

,

,

(11)

The yield moment in the spring is simply the panel shear strength times the height of the

panel. Using equation 7,

PZ Y YP K YP

F H V M = = 6 . 0

,

(12)

As seen in figure 2, the stiffness of the flange bending component of the Krawinkler model

is equal to the yield moment in the flange bending component divided by 4.0 times the yield

rotation of the panel component. The yield rotation of the spring representing the panel

component is

G

F

K

M

Y

K YP

K YP

K YP

6 . 0

,

,

,

= = (13)

The yield moment is equal to the yield strength times the panel height;

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004 125

2

8 1 ) )( ( .

, Cf Cf Y YF K YF

t b F H V M = =

(14)

and the resulting stiffness is

G t b

M

S

Cf Cf

K YP

K YF

K F

2

75 0

4

) )( ( .

,

,

,

= =

(15)

In summary, Expressions 11 and 12 and 14 and 15 are all that are needed to model the

panel spring and the flange spring, respectively, in the Krawinkler model. If desired, a strain

hardening component may be added.

The Scissors model

The Scissors model is shown in figure 4. This model derives its name from the fact that the

model acts as a scissors, with a single hinge in the center. Only two nodes are required to

model the joint if rigid end zones are used for the column and girder regions inside the

panel zone. The model has four degrees of freedom. As with the Krawinkler model, one

rotational spring is used to represent the panel component and the other is used to

represent the flange component of behavior.

The properties of the Scissors model are determined in terms of those derived previously

for the Krawinkler model. First, consider the displacement participation factor for panel

shear as derived in equation 6. Noting that the denominator of this equation is the same as

the panel spring stiffness for the Krawinkler model, equation 6 may be rewritten as

K P

C

P

S

H V

,

2 2

) 1 (

= (16)

For the Scissors model, the moment in the spring under the column shear V

C

is simply V

C

H.

If the Scissors spring has a stiffness S

P,S

, the rotation in the spring is V

C

H/S

P,S

. The drift over

the height of the column is the rotation times the height, thus for the Scissors model,

S P

C

Scissors P

S

H V

,

2

,

= (17)

As this displacement must be identical to that given in equation 16, it is evident that the

relationship between the Krawinkler spring and the Scissors spring is as follows:

2

,

,

) 1 (

=

K P

S P

S

S (18)

Similarly, when the moment in the Krawinkler spring is V

P

H, the moment in the Scissors

spring is V

C

H. Using equations 3 and 9

) 1 (

,

= = H V H V M

C P K P

(19)

) 1 (

,

,

=

K P

S P

M

M (20)

126 Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

The relationships given by equations 18 and 20 hold also for the column flange components

of the models:

2

,

,

) 1 (

=

K F

S F

S

S (21)

) 1 (

,

,

=

K F

S F

M

M (22)

Rotational Spring

For Column Flange

Bending

Boundary of

Panel Zone

Real

Hinge

Rigid

Link

Rotational Spring

For Panel Shear

Rotational Spring

For Column Flange

Bending

Boundary of

Panel Zone

Real

Hinge

Rigid

Link

Rotational Spring

For Panel Shear

Figure 4. The Scissors model.

As an example, consider the case where and are 0.1 and 0.2, respectively, the Scissor

spring must be approximately twice as stiff and 1.43 times stronger than the Krawinkler

spring. Many analysts erroneously use the springs derived for the Krawinkler model in the

Scissors model. This will produce models that are more flexible than the true structure, and

that prematurely yield in the panel zone regions.

Comparisons between the Krawinkler and Scissors models

One should note from equations 18 and 20 that while the properties of the Scissors models

are dependent on the quantities and , those of the Krawinkler model are not. Since it

was explicitly assumed that the columns and girders on both sides of the joint are of equal

height and span, and these terms are reflected in and , the Scissors model may not be

used when this condition is violated. There is no such restriction on the use of the

Krawinkler model.

The deformed shape of the Krawinkler and Scissors models are shown in figure 5. In this

figure all of the deformation is assumed to be in the panel, with the girder and column rigid.

The most striking difference in the behavior between the two models is the offset in the

centrelines of the columns and girders in the Krawinkler model, which are not present in the

Scissors model.

A series of analyses were carried out using DRAIN-2DX (7) to determine the effect of the

kinematic differences on the pushover response of a series of assemblages and planar

frames which had yielding in the panel zone and at the ends of the girders. A variety of

girder spans were used, but the column height remained constant. Analysis was performed

with and without gravity load, and with and without P-Delta effects. For simple

subassemblages analyzed using the Krawinkler and the Scissors models, the pushover

responses were identical. For structures created by assembling subassemblages into a

rectilinear frame, but with real hinges at the midspan of the girders and midheight of the

columns, the pushover responses were again identical. Minor differences in the pushover

responses were obtained when the midspan/midheight hinges were removed. It was

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004 127

concluded, therefore, that the Scissors model, when properly used, is generally as effective

for analysis as is the Krawinkler model, given the approximations in the derivations and the

uncertainties involved in the analysis.

Offsets

Figure 5. Kinematics of Krawinkler model (left) and Scissors model (right).

COMPARISON WITH DETAILED FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS AND SAC RESEARCH

To evaluate the effectiveness of the elastic modeling techniques developed above, a series

of comparisons was performed using test results provided by Ricles (5) from Phase II of the

SAC Steel Project. The properties used for one of the test specimens are provided in Table

1. Additionally, the SAC subassemblage was modeled using ABAQUS. The ABAQUS

model of the subassemblage is shown in figure 6.

Table 1. Lehigh test C1: Geometric and material properties.

Yield Stress (ksi)

Member Size Length (in.) Grade

Mill Certs. Coupon Test

Girder W36x150 354 A572 Grade 50 57

56.7 flange

62.9 web

Column W14x398 156 A572 Grade 50 54

53.2 flange

52.2 web

Continuity Plate N/A N/A N/A N/A

Doubler Plate (2) @ A572 Grade 50 57 57.1

Figure 6. ABAQUS model of SAC subassemblage.

128 Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

The results of the analysis showed very good agreement between the Krawinkler, Scissors,

and ABAQUS models, and the SAC experimental results. See Downs (1) for a detailed

discussion of modeling techniques used in the ABAQUS analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Simplified mechanical models such as the Krawinkler model and the Scissors model are

extremely effective in representing both elastic and inelastic panel zone deformations in

steel frame structures. While the Krawinkler model is considerably more complex and has

significant kinematic differences with the Scissors model, the results obtained using the two

models are essentially identical. The results from the simple mechanical models also

correlate well with more advanced finite element analysis, and with experimental results.

The Scissors model, however, is limited to use in frames with equal bays widths and equal

story heights. The Krawinkler model has no such restriction. Very significant errors will

occur in the analysis if the properties derived for the Krawinkler model are used in a

Scissors model. Such inconsistent use of the models was found in several references

reviewed by the authors.

NOTATION

ratio of effective depth of column to span length

ratio of effective depth of girder to column height

Y

yield displacement of panel

lateral displacement over height H

C

column contribution to displacement

G

girder contribution to displacement

P

panel zone contribution to displacement

PA

axial contribution to

P

PF

flexural contribution to

P

PV

shear contribution to

P

P,K

rotation in Krawinkler spring representing panel resistance

YP,K

yield rotation in Krawinkler spring representing panel resistance

P

shear stress in panel zone due to column shear force V

C

1

shear stress in panel zone due to unit column shear force

t

P

panel zone thickness, equal to column web thickness + doubler plate thickness

t

Cf

thickness of column flange

b

Cf

width of column flange

F

y

yield stress of steel used in column and doubler plate

G shear modulus of steel

H height of column from center of story above to center of story below

L length of girder from center of bay to center of bay

M

F,K

moment in Krawinkler spring due to column flange bending resistance

M

P,K

moment in Krawinkler spring due to panel shear resistance

M

YF,K

yield moment in Krawinkler spring due to column flange bending resistance

M

YP,K

yield moment in Krawinkler spring due to panel shear resistance

M

YF,S

yield moment in Scissors spring due to column flange bending resistance

M

YP,S

yield moment in Scissors spring due to panel shear resistance

S

P,K

stiffness of Krawinkler spring due to panel shear resistance

S

F,K

stiffness of Krawinkler spring due to column flange bending resistance

S

P,S

stiffness of Scissors spring due to panel shear resistance

S

F,S

stiffness of Scissors spring due to column flange bending resistance

Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004 129

V

C

average shear force in columns above and below the joint

V

P

horizontal shear force in panel zone

P

volume of panel zone = LHt

P

REFERENCES

(1) Downs, William M, (2002). Modeling and Behavior of the Beam/Column Joint Region

of Steel Moment Resisting Frames, M.S.Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia.

(2) Krawinkler, H., (1978), Shear in Beam-Column Joints in Seismic Design of Frames,

Engineering Journal, v15, n3, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago,

Illinois.

(3) Hibbit, Karlson, and Sorensen, (2001). ABAQUS Users Manual, Verson 6.2.

(4) FEMA (2000). Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment Frame

Buildings, FEMA-350. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C.

(5) Ricles, J. M., (2002). Inelastic Cyclic Testing of Welded Unreinforced Moment

Connections Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, v128, n4.

(6) Charney, Finley A., (1993). "Economy of Steel Frame Buildings Through Identification

of Structural Behavior", Proceedings of the Spring 1993 AISC Steel Construction

Conference, Orlando, Florida.

(7) Prakesh, V. and Powell, G. H., (1993). DRAIN 2D-X Users Guide, University of

California, Berkeley, California.

130 Connections in Steel Structures V - Amsterdam - June 3-4, 2004

## Mult mai mult decât documente.

Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.

Anulați oricând.