Key Factors that Affect the Behavior of Steel Beams and Columns in Special Moment Frames

Year 2023, , 361 - 375, 20.06.2023

Gülen Özkula

https://doi.org/10.24012/dumf.1190792

Abstract

Steel Special Moment Frames (SMFs) are favored seismic force-resisting systems due to their architectural flexibility and high ductility. While shallow columns (section depth less than 356 mm) were commonly used in these systems before the Northridge earthquake, deeper columns (section depth greater than 356 mm) have become more popular in recent years to meet code-enforced story drift requirements economically. However, limited research exists on the hinging behavior of deep columns under axial compression and cyclic drift. Since deep columns exhibit larger slenderness ratios and are more susceptible to local and global buckling, understanding their behavior is crucial. This study investigates the behavior of fifteen four-story steel SMFs using finite element program simulations, focusing on four key factors affecting frame behavior: 1) Column bracing, 2) Beam bracing, 3) Column stiffening, and 4) Strong Column Weak Beam (SCWB) ratio. The influence of axial force level and column section properties is also examined. Results demonstrate that deep columns may experience local and/or global instabilities at relatively low story drift levels. Findings suggest that SMF performance can be enhanced by bracing deep columns at the top and bottom levels of beam flanges and adding stiffeners to the columns' web. Controlling column shortening by increasing the SCWB ratio is also recommended.

Keywords

Special Moment Frames, Deep columns, Column bracing, Beam bracing

Thanks

This study was supported by the Scientific and Technology Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) through fellowship program.

Key Factors that Affect the Behavior of Steel Beams and Columns in Special Moment Frames

Abstract

Steel Special Moment Frame (SMF) is a preferred seismic force-resisting system for its architectural flexibility and high ductility. Before the Northridge earthquake, shallow columns (section depth less than 356 mm.) were used generally in these seismic force-resisting systems. However, to achieve economy in design, there were growing trend to use deeper columns (section depth greater than 356 mm.) to satisfy the code-enforced story drift requirements in recent years. Despite the wide use of these columns, very few research were available on the deep columns hinging behavior under axial compression and cyclic drift. Since a deep column has larger slenderness ratio and is more vulnerable to both local and global buckling, it is essential to investigate its behavior. These buckling modes can severely affect the response of the SMFs by producing undesirable effects such as axial shortening, which increases as the applied forces of compression becomes larger.
In this study, total of fifteen four-story steel SMFs’ behavior was investigated using the finite element program simulations. Four key factors that affect the behavior of these frames were studied: 1) Column bracing; 2) Beam bracing; 3) Column stiffening; and 4) Strong Column Weak Beam (SCWB) ratio. Effect of the axial force level and the column section properties were also investigated for broadening the investigation. It is shown that deep columns can suffer local and/or global instabilities even at relatively low story drift levels. The findings indicate that the performance of SMFs can be improved by bracing deep columns at the top and bottom level of beam flanges and by adding stiffeners on the web of these columns. It is suggested that column shortening can be controlled by increasing SCWB ratio.

Keywords

Special Moment Frames, Deep columns, Column bracing, Beam bracing

References

• [1] FEMA. “Prestandart and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings”, FEMA 356, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C., 2000.
• [2] Ibarra L, Medina R, Krawinkler H.“Collapse assessment of deteriorating SDOF systems”. Proceedings of the 12th European conference on earthquake engineering, Elsevier Science Ltd, London, September 2002.
• [3] Ibarra, L.F., Medina, R.A., and Krawinkler H. “Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34:1489-1511, 2005.
• [4] Rahnama, M., Krawinkler, H. “Effects of Soft Soil and Hysteresis Model on Seismic Demands”, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, 1993.
• [5] Lignos, D.G., Krawinkler, H. “Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(11), 1291-1302, 2011.
• [6] Newell, J.D. and Uang, C.-M. “Cyclic behavior of steel wide-flange columns subjected to large drift,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 8, 1334-1342, ASCE, 2008.
• [7] Elkady, A., and Lignos, D.. “Dynamic stability of deep slender columns as part of special MRFs designed in seismic regions: finite element modeling.” Proc., 1st Inernational Conference on Performance-Based and Life-Cycle Structural Engineering (PLSE), Hong Kong, China, 2012.
• [8] Cheng, X., Chen, Y., and Nethercot, D.A. “Experimental study on H-shaped steel beam-columns with large width-thickness ratios under cyclic bending about weak-axis.” Engineering Structures, 49, 264-274, 2013.
• [9] Fogarty, J., and El-Tawil, S. “Collapse resistance of steel columns under combined axial and lateral loading”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 142, No. 1, ASCE, 2016.
• [10] Suzuki, Y., and Lignos, D.G. “Large scale collapse experiments of wide flange steel beam-columns.” 8th International Conference on Behavior of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas, Shanghai, China, 2015.
• [11] Wu, T.U., El-Tawil, S., and McCormick, J. “Highly ductile limits for deep steel columns,” J. Struct. Eng. 144 (4): 04018016, 2018.
• [12] Ozkula, G., Harris, J., and Uang, C.-M. “Observations from cyclic tests on deep, wide-flange beam-columns”, Engineering Journal, 1st Quarter, AISC, 45-59, 2017.
• [13] Ozkula, G., Harris, J., and Uang, C.-M. “Classifying cyclic buckling modes of steel wide-flange columns under cyclic loading,” Structures Congress, 155-167, ASCE/SEI, Denver, Colorado, 2017.
• [14] AISC. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, ANSI/AISC 341-05, American Institute of Steel Construction Chicago, IL, 2015.
• [15] ABAQUS-FEA/CAE. Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp., RI, 2011.
• [16] Harris J.L, Speicher, M.S. “Assessment of first generation performance-based seismic design methods for new buildings, Volume 1: Special moment frames”, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Feb. 2015.
• [17] AISC. Specification for structural steel buildings, ANSI/AISC 360-05, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, 2015.
• [18] ASTM. Standard definitions of terms relating to constant- amplitude low-cycle fatigue testing, ASTM Standard E466, 2003.
• [19] FEMA. “State of the art report on system performance of steel moment frames subject to earthquake ground shaking”, FEMA 355C, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C, 2000.
• [20] Schneider, S.P., Roeder, C.W., Carpenter, J.E., “Seismic behavior of moment-resisting steel frames: experimental study”, Journal of Structural Engineering, 119(6), 1885-1902, 1993.
• [21] Nakashima, M., Sawaizumi S., “Column-to-beam strength ratio required for ensuring beam-collapse mechanisms in earthquake responses of steel moment frames”, Proceeding of the 12th World Conference, 2000.
• [22] Suita, K., Yamada, S., Tada, M., Kasai, K., Matsuoka, Y., and Sato, E. “Results of recent e-defense tests on full-scale steel buildings: Part 1 − Collapse experiment on 4-story moment frame,” Proceedings Structures Congress, Vancouver, Canada, 2008.
• [23] Trahair, N.S., “Flexural-Torsional Buckling of Structures”, Taylor and Francis, 1993.
• [24] Igawa, N. and Ikarashi, K. “Effect of stiffener position on buckling behavior of H-shaped steel beam with upper flange restraint”, Thesis, Department of Architecture and Building Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan, 2020.
• [25] ASCE. “Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures”, ASCE 7, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2016.