Advertisement

Seismic Rehabilitation of Steel Frame Connections Through Asymmetrically Weakening the Beam

  • Mohammad Bahirai
  • Mohsen GeramiEmail author
Article
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Poor seismic performance of steel frame connections were proved after the Northridge earthquake (1994) which led to fundamental change in acceptance criteria of the steel frame connections. New design codes consider the plastic hinge to be located far from the column face to prevent brittle fractures at or near welds. In these cases there is a need to retrofit the existing steel frame buildings which have been designed according to Pre-Northridge seismic codes. In current study, several experimental tests were conducted to investigate the influence of two retrofit techniques on cyclic behavior of a Pre-Northridge connection. The techniques involved intentionally weakening the beam to trigger the plastic hinge to a predefined location in the beam. The retrofit scenario was implemented through reduction and annealing the beam bottom flange. For the Pre-Northridge connection a tear damage mechanism was observed near the welded joint accompanied by a sudden drop in connection strength, while the retrofitted specimens were able to relocate the plastic hinge away from the column face. In reduced specimens, top and bottom flanges of the beam showed local buckling near the joint at the end of loading, however in annealing technique low stress demands in near weld region was resulted. It was concluded that area reduction of the beam would make the connection prone to out of plane buckling.

Keywords

Pre-Northridge connection Seismic rehabilitation Steel beam to column connection Reduce beam section (RBS) Heat treated beam section (HBS) 

References

  1. ABAQUS/PRE. (1997). Users manual. Hibbit: Karlsson and Sorensen Inc.Google Scholar
  2. AISC. (2011). Specifications for structural steel buildings. Chicago: American Institute of Steel Construction Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Atashzaban, A., Hajirasouliha, I., Jazany, R. A., & Izadinia, M. (2015). Optimum drilled flange moment resisting connections for seismic regions. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 112, 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bramfitt, B. L. (1991). Annealing of steel. Heat treating ASM handbook (Vol. 4, pp. 42–55). Geauga County: ASM International.Google Scholar
  5. Chi, B., Uang, C. M., & Chen, A. (2006). Seismic rehabilitation of pre-Northridge steel moment connections: A case study. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 62(8), 783–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Civjan, S. A., Engelhardt, M. D., & Gross, J. L. (2000). Retrofit of pre-Northridge moment-resisting connections. Journal of Structural Engineering, 126(4), 445–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. FEMA 355D, Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2000). State of the art report on connection performance.Google Scholar
  8. FEMA 547. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2006). Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings.Google Scholar
  9. FEMA-351. (2000). Recommended seismic evaluation and upgrade criteria for existing welded steel moment-frame buildings prepared by the SAC Joint Venture for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  10. Judd, J. P., Charney, F. A., & Pryor, S. E. (2015). Retrofit of steel-frame buildings using enhanced gravity-frame connections. In Improving the seismic performance of existing buildings and other structures 2015 (pp. 132–143).Google Scholar
  11. Kim, S. Y., & Lee, C. H. (2017). Seismic retrofit of welded steel moment connections with highly composite floor slabs. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 139, 62–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kim, Y. J., Oh, S. H., & Moon, T. S. (2004). Seismic behavior and retrofit of steel moment connections considering slab effects. Engineering Structures, 26(13), 1993–2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Morrison, M., Schweizer, D., & Hassan, T. (2015). An innovative seismic performance enhancement technique for steel building moment resisting connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 109, 34–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Popov, E. P., Amin, N. R., Louie, J. J., & Stephen, R. M. (1985). Cyclic behavior of large beam-column assemblies. Earthquake Spectra, 1(2), 203–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Quayyum, S. (2014). Advanced finite element analyses of moment resisting connections for improving seismic performance and exploring effects of residual stress and fire damage. Raleigh: North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
  16. Saberi, H., Kheyroddin, A., & Gerami, M. (2016). Welded haunches for seismic retrofitting of bolted T-stub connections and flexural strengthening of simple connections. Engineering Structures, 129, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Saberi, V., Gerami, M., & Kheyroddin, A. (2017). Post tensioned tendons for seismic retrofitting of weak bolted T-stub connections. International Journal of Steel Structures, 17(3), 877–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. SAC Joint Venture. (2000). Cyclic response of RBS moment connections: Loading sequence and lateral bracing effects. Rep. No. SAC/BD-00/22.Google Scholar
  19. Tremblay, R., & Filiatrault, A. (1997). Seismic performance of steel moment resisting frames retrofitted with a locally reduced beam section connection. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 24(1), 78–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Verhoeven, J. D. (1975). Fundamentals of physical metallurgy. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Steel Construction 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringSemnan UniversitySemnanIran
  2. 2.Civil Engineering FacultySemnan UniversitySemnanIran

Personalised recommendations