Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 891–926 | Cite as

Seismic demand assessment of code-designed continuity plate in panel zone

  • Mohammad Soheil GhobadiEmail author
  • Roohollah Ahmady Jazany
Original Research
  • 28 Downloads

Abstract

This study investigated the seismic demand of continuity plates (CP) in Special Moment Frames (SMFs), including built-up I-shape beams. Six reference experiments for SMF connections were considered, including beams with unequal depths on both sides of the column, to compare the seismic demand for CP with the corresponding value of the AISC code formula. The effects of beam shape properties, connection type, shear strain of the panel zone (PZ), different construction detailing and straight/inclined CP in dual/trapezoidal PZ were included in this study. In addition, companion analytical studies were performed to evaluate CP seismic demand. The results of the experiments and numerical analyses showed that the AISC code underestimates seismic demand for CP in joints with beams having sizes outside the geometries of hot-rolled structural sections. Poor seismic performance of the code-designed CP led to premature yielding and out-of-plane local buckling of CP, which were observed in the reference experiments and confirmed by numerical models. Finally, an equation for CP seismic demand was developed based on findings of this research. It was demonstrated that the proposed seismic demand met the required seismic criteria using this equation, and it also kept CP within the safe structural margins.

Keywords

Continuity plate Seismic demand Built-up I section Connection detailing Panel zone constructional detailing Buckling 

References

  1. Ahmady Jazany R, Ghobadi MS (2017) Design methodology for inclined continuity plate of panel zone. Thin Wall Struct 113:69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmady Jazany R, Hoseini Hashemi B (2012) Effects of detailing on panel zone seismic behaviour in special moment resisting frames with unequal beam depths. Can J Civil Eng 39(4):388–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahmady Jazany R, Esmaeily A, Hosseini Hashemi B, Kayhani H (2016) Analytical investigation on performance of special moment-resisting connections with unequal beam depths. Struct Design Tall Spec Build 25:375–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. AISC (1992) Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction Inc, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. AISC (1993) Load and resistance factor design specification for structural steel buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction Inc, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  6. AISC (1997) Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction Inc, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  7. AISC (1999a) Load and resistance factor design specification for structural steel buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction Inc, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  8. AISC (1999b) Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings—supplement no. 1. American Institute of Steel Construction Inc, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  9. AISC (2000) Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings—supplement no. 2. American Institute of Steel Construction Inc, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  10. AISC (2002) Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction Inc, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  11. AISC 341-05 (2005) Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction Inc, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  12. AISC 341-10 (2010) Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction Inc, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  13. AISC 341-16 (2016) Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction Inc, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  14. AISC 358-16 (2016) Prequalified connections for special and intermediate steel moment frames for seismic applications. AISC Committee on Specification, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  15. AISC 360-05 (2005) Specification for structural steel buildings. AISC Committee on Specification, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  16. AISC 360-10 (2010) Specification for structural steel buildings. AISC Committee on Specification, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  17. AISC 360-16 (2016) Specification for structural steel buildings. AISC Committee on Specification, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  18. ANSYS (1998) User’s manual, version 5.4. ANSYS Inc, HoustonGoogle Scholar
  19. Aribert JM, Lauchal A, Nawawy OI (1981) Elastic-plastic modelization of the resistance of a column in the compression region. Constr Met 2:122–131Google Scholar
  20. Brando G, Sarracco G, De Matteis G (2014) Strength of an aluminum column web in tension. J Struct Eng ASCE 141(7):04014180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Brandonisio G, De Luca A, Mele E (2012) Shear strength of panel zone in beam-to-column connections. J Constr Steel Res 71:129–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Castro JM, Davila-Arbona FJ, Elghazouli AY (2008) Seismic design approaches for panel zones in steel moment frames. J Earthq Eng 12(S1):34–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. De Matteis G, Sarracco G, Brando G, Mazzolani FM (2014) Influence of column axial load and heat affected zone on the strength of aluminium column web in tension. Materials 7(5):3557–3567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Elghazouli AY (2010) Assessment of European seismic design procedures for steel framed structures. Bull Earthq Eng 8(1):65–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Elkady A, Lignos DG (2015) Analytical investigation of the cyclic behavior and plastic hinge formation in deep wide-flange steel beam-columns. Bull Earthq Eng 13(4):1097–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. El-Tawil S (2000) Panel zone yielding in steel moment connections. Eng J AISC 37(1):120–131Google Scholar
  27. El-Tawil S, Vidarsson E, Mikesell T, Kunnath SK (1999) Inelastic behavior and design of steel panel zones. J Struct Eng ASCE 125(2):183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Faella C, Piluso V, Rizzano G (1999) Structural steel semirigid connections: theory, design, and software. CRC press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  29. FEMA 350 (2000) Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame buildings. Report no. FEMA-350. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  30. FEMA 355D (2000) State of the art report on connection performance. Report no. FEMA-355D. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  31. FEMA 356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Report no. FEMA 356. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  32. Ghobadi MS, Mazroi A, Ghassemieh M (2009a) Cyclic response characteristics of retrofitted moment resisting connections. J Constr Steel Res 65(3):586–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ghobadi MS, Ghassemieh M, Mazroi A, Abolmaali A (2009b) Seismic performance of ductile welded connections using T-stiffener. J Constr Steel Res 65(4):766–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Graham JD, Sherbourne AN, Khabbaz RN, Jensen CD (1959) Welded interior beam-column connections. AISC Publication. Reprint No. 146 (59-7, 60-3)Google Scholar
  35. Hajjar JF, Dexter RJ, Prochnow SD, Ye YA, Cotton SC (2003) Continuity plate detailing for steel moment-resisting connections. Eng J AISC 40(4):189–212Google Scholar
  36. Han SW, Kwon GU, Moon KH (2007) Cyclic behaviour of post-Northridge WUF-B connections. J Constr Steel Res 63(3):365–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Han SW, Moon KH, Jung J (2014) Cyclic performance of welded unreinforced flange-welded web moment connections. Earthq Spectra 30(4):1663–1681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hoseini Hashemi B, Ahmady Jazany R (2012) Study of connection detailing on SMRF seismic behavior for unequal beam depths. J Constr Steel Res 68(1):150–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kim T, Whittaker AS, Gilani AS, Bertero VV, Takhirov SM (2002a) Cover-plate and flange-plate steel moment-resisting connections. J Struct Eng ASCE 128(4):474–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kim T, Whittaker AS, Gilani AS, Bertero VV, Takhirov SM (2002b) Experimental evaluation of plate-reinforced steel moment-resisting connections. J Struct Eng ASCE 128(4):483–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kosarieh AH, Danesh F (2016) Effects of panel zone yielding on seismic behavior of welded-flange-plate connections. Bull Earthq Eng 14(10):2805–2825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lee CH, Uang CM (1997) Analytical modeling of dual panel zone in haunch repaired steel MRFs. J Struct Eng ASCE 123(1):20–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lee DA, Cotton SC, Hajjar JF, Dexter RJ, Ye Y, Prochnow SD (2005a) Cyclic behavior of steel moment-resisting connections reinforced by alternative column stiffener details I. Connection performance and continuity plate detailing. Eng J AISC 42(4):189Google Scholar
  44. Lee DA, Cotton SC, Hajjar JF, Dexter RJ, Ye YA, Prochnow SD (2005b) Cyclic behavior of steel moment-resisting connections reinforced by alternative column stiffener details II. Panel zone behavior and doubler plate detailing. Eng J AISC 42(4):215Google Scholar
  45. Matusiak M (1999) Strength and ductility of welded structures in aluminium alloys. Dr. Ing. Dissertation. Department of Structural Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  46. Prochnow SD, Dexter RJ, Hajjar JF, Ye YA, Cotton SC (2000) Local flange bending and local web yielding limit states in steel moment-resisting connections. Report No. ST-00-4. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  47. Ren WX, Fang SE, Young B (2006) Analysis and design of cold-formed steel channels subjected to combined bending and web crippling. Thin Wall Struct 44(3):314–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. SAC (1997) Protocol for fabrication, inspection, testing and documentation of beam-column connection test and other experimental specimens. SAC Rep. SAC/BD-97/02. SAC Joint Venture, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  49. Saneei Nia Z, Mazroi A, Ghassemieh M, Pezeshki H (2014) Seismic performance and comparison of three different I beam to box column joints. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 13(4):717–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schneider SP, Amidi A (1998) Seismic behavior of steel frames with deformable panel zones. J Struct Eng ASCE 124(1):35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shaikh AF (1978) Proposed revision to shear-friction provision. PCI J 23(2):12–21Google Scholar
  52. Simitses GJ, Hodges DH (2006) Fundamentals of structural stability. Butterworth-Heinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  53. Slutter RG (1981) Test of panel zone behavior in beam-column connections. Report no. 200.81.403.1. Fritz Engineering Laboratory, Lehigh University, BethlehemGoogle Scholar
  54. Tran AT, Hassett PM, Uang CM (2013) A flexibility-based formulation for the design of continuity plates in steel special moment frames. Eng J AISC 50(3):181–200Google Scholar
  55. Ye YA, Hajjar JF, Dexter RJ, Prochnow SD, Cotton SC (2000) Nonlinear analysis of continuity plate and doubler plate details in steel moment frame connections. Report no. ST-00-3. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  56. Yu QS, Uang CM, Gross J (2000) Seismic rehabilitation design of steel moment connection with welded haunch. J Struct Eng ASCE 126(1):69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammad Soheil Ghobadi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Roohollah Ahmady Jazany
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and TechnologyImam Khomeini International UniversityQazvinIran
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineering, East Tehran BranchIslamic Azad UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations