2009 nees presentation
TRANSCRIPT
Experimental Performance of Three Story SCBF Systems
Eric J. LumpkinGraduate Student – University of Washington
Charles W. Roeder Professor – Principal Investigator (PI)
University of Washington
Dawn E. Lehman Assistant Professor – Co-PI
University of Washington
2009 NEES Conference
June 25, 2009
Po-Chien Hsiao Graduate Student
University of Washington
K.C. Tsai International Collaborator
Professor, Director of NCREE
NEES-SG Project Overview
Objective
To improve the seismic design of
SCBF systems and connections through
advanced models and full scale system
testing
University of California, Berkeley
July, 2009
NCREE University of Washington
MAST, University of Minnesota
Fall, 2009
NEES-SG Project Overview
• University of Washington – Develop improved design methods for SCBF’s– Establish a performance based design technique– Identifying and classifying yield and failure mechanisms
Brace Buckling Brace Yielding Gusset Plate Yielding
Column/Beam Yielding Brace Fracture
– In design, how do we ensure this yielding hierarchy occurs?
• Balanced design procedure (β)• Ensures ductility instead of resistance • Validated through 28, single bay, single story tests at UW
NCREE Test Setup
• More accurate boundary conditions than UW test setup– Tested vertically– Additional demands from
concrete slab– Fully restrained column bases
• Reused frame between tests– Simply removed and replaced
gusset plates and braces– Allowed for rapid testing
• Loaded applied to frame through top story slab
• Use of blue out-of-plane frame
Two Story Testing at NCREE (TCBF 1)
• Tomorrows Concentrically Braced Frame 1 (TCBF 1)– Two story, X-Brace configuration– 8t elliptical clearance on corner and middle gussets
8t
8t
Edge Stiffeners
Extension to Three Story Testing
• Investigation of unique gusset plate configurations– Chevron configuration – Gussets on either side of a beam
• Modification of middle gusset plate clearances• Eliminate middle gusset edge stiffeners
8t
6t
TCBF 2
TCBF 2-1
(HSS)
TCBF 2-2
(WF)
TCBF 2-3
(2t, IP)
Construction Drawings
Completed Specimen
TCBF 2-1 (HSS) Performance
Frame Drift: -1.74% to 2.08%
1st Story: -2.20% to 2.18%
2nd Story: -2.15% to 2.17%
3rd Story: -1.06% to 1.07%
TCBF 2 Test Series PerformanceTCBF 2-2 (WF)
Frame Drift: -2.43% to 2.43% Frame Drift: -1.74% to 1.74%
TCBF 2-3 (IP)
3.48%
4.86%
3.82%
Frame3rd Story
2nd Story1st Story
2.13%4.32%4.38%TCBF 2-1 (8t,HSS)
1.99%4.61%3.99%TCBF 2-3 (2t, IP)
2.99%5.74%5.21%TCBF 2-2 (8t, WF)
Drift Ranges
TCBF 2-2 (WF) 1st Story Video
Brace Buckling and Yielding
NS
TCBF 2-1 (HSS) TCBF 2-2 (WF)NS
TCBF 2-1 Middle vs. Corner Gusset PlateNS
NS Middle Gussets Corner Gussets
TCBF 2-2 Middle vs. Corner Gusset Plate
NS NS
3.05% SD
Middle Gussets Corner Gussets
Brace Fracture
NS NS
TCBF 2-1 (8t, HSS) TCBF 2-2 (8t, WF)
TCBF 2-3 Connection
• In-plane buckling detail– Achieved via rotation of a “knife plate”– Gusset plate to remain elastic– Majority of inelastic action in knife plate– 20 mm knife plate– 18 mm gusset plate– 2t hinge region on knife plate
2t
TCBF2-3 In-Plane Buckling Video
TCBF 2-3 Brace In-Plane Buckling
NS
1.06% SD 1.86% SD 2.32% SD
TCBF 2-3 Knife Plate Yielding and Rotation
NS NS
Preliminary Conclusions
• TCBF2-1 (HSS) and TCBF 2-2 (WF)– The type of brace has a large effect on system performance– WF braces more ductile than HSS braces however loose
strength rapidly post buckling – WF braces place a greater demand on the connections than
HSS braces– Elliptical clearance only valid for corner gusset plates– 6t horizontal offset allows for significant inelastic action while
limiting the occurrence of buckling
• TCBF 2-3 (In-Plane)– In-plane buckling SCBF’s similar to the performance of OOP
buckling SCBF’s– Knife plate connection allows for greater connection rotation– Increased serviceability
Acknowledgements
• K.C. Tsai and NCREE Staff– Chih-Yu Wei, An-Chien Wu, Ching-Yi Tsai
• My advisors – Dr. Charles Roeder and Dr. Dawn Lehman• Po-Chien Hsiao • NEES and NSF• Our advisory committee
Questions, Comments?