Advertisement

A numerical investigation of the inelastic cyclic behaviour of short and long links designed according to RPA 99 provisions

  • Abderrahim LabedEmail author
  • Toufik Benmansour
  • Ahmad M. I. Abu halaweh
Original Paper
  • 2 Downloads

Abstract

Despite the fact that EBFs have been worldwide accepted and used as a seismic resisting system, they are not yet covered by the Algerian National Seismic Code (RPA 99). The cyclic inelastic responses of more than 20 specimens of isolated links under cyclic load protocol of AISC are simulated and analysed using elastic–plastic model implanted in ABAQUS 14. These isolated links are made from IPE360 and 450, of isotropic steel grade S235. The impact of the shape section of the link is also analysed using HEB profiles with approximately similar geometrical properties as for IPE sections. The effect of the stiffener’s kind, number, orientation, spacing and combinations on the overall inelastic cyclic behaviour is also analysed. The numerical results show the determinant role of parameters considered in this study in addition to the contribution of stiffeners, while being elastic, in delaying the premature local buckling, particularly for shear links. Also, the primary obtained results show the importance of the shape section. Based on the good performance of the models studied herein which were designed to RPA99 provisions, the authors think that the time has come for RPA, in its future version, to include the EBF structures as seismic lateral resisting system and to adopt provisions of design of links from international seismic codes: EC8, AISC as they are very close to each other.

Keywords

Links Inelastic Cyclic Local buckling ABAQUS RPA EC8 AISC 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. ABAQUS. (2006). Standard user’s manual volumes I-III and ABAQUS CAE manual. Version 6.14-1. Pawtucket: Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. AISC. (2005). American Institute of Steel Construction Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings March 9 2005 including supplement No. 1 November 16 2005. Approved by the AISC Committee on Specifications and issued by the AISC Board of Directors One East Wacker Drive, suite 700. Chicago, IL 60601-1802.Google Scholar
  3. ATC-24. (1992). Guidelines for cyclic seismic testing of components of steel structures for buildings. Redwood City: Applied Technology Council.Google Scholar
  4. Badalassi, M., Braconi, A., Caprili, S., & Salvatore, W. (2013). Influence of steel mechanical properties on EBF seismic behavior. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 11(6), 2249–2285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruneau, M., Uang, C., Whittaker, A., & Rafael Sabelli, S.E. (2011). Ductile design of steel structures, Second Edition. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.Google Scholar
  6. EN-12512. (2001). Timber Structures-Test methods. Cyclic testing of joints made with mechanical fasteners. In European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  7. Eurocode 3. (2003). Design of steel structures. European Committee for standardization, EN 1993. In European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  8. Eurocode 8. (2005). Design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildings. Brussels: European Standard EN 1998-3.Google Scholar
  9. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (1997). NEHRP commentary on the guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA 274), Washington, DC, October 1997.Google Scholar
  10. Hjelmstad, K. D., & Popov, E. P. (1983). Cyclic behavior and design of link beams. Journal of structural engineering, 109(10), 2387–2403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Imani, R., & Bruneau, M. (2015). Effect of link-beam stiffener and brace flange alignment on inelastic cyclic behavior of eccentrically braced frames. Engineering Journal, 52(2), 109–124.Google Scholar
  12. Kasai, K., & Popov, E. P. (1986). Cyclic web buckling control for shear link beams. Journal of structural engineering, 112(3), 505–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Krawinkler, H. (2009). Loading histories for cyclic tests in support of performance assessment of structural components. In 3rd International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering, San Francisco, USA, October 15–16.Google Scholar
  14. Labed, A., et al. (2014a). A parametric elastic investigation of the effect of the link Length for dual multi-stories MRF/EBF structures on the seismic Behaviour for moderate seismic regions. 1ère Conférence Internationale sur la Mécanique des Matériaux et des Structures MSM2014- Marrakech Morocco 2014.Google Scholar
  15. Labed, A., et al. (2014b). A comparative linear study of the effect of different concentric bracing and their configurations on the seismic behaviour of steel multi-stories dual structures designed to RPA99 and EC8 with CCM97 and EC3 provisions. Marrakech: 1ère Conférence Internationale sur la Mécanique des Matériaux et des Structures MSM2014.Google Scholar
  16. Labed, A., et al. (2014c) Analyse de l’effet de la longueur du tronçon sismique sur le comportement sismique des structures métallique multi-étagées mixtes avec des contreventements excentres (EBFs) selon RPA. Les 1ères Rencontres Nationales de Génie Civil. Bejaia, les 22 et 23 octobre 2014 (In French).Google Scholar
  17. Labed, A., et al. (2015). Web Stiffeners Number and Configurations Effect of Type on The Nonlinear Behaviour of a short seismic Link In EBF- D Structures. 1 er Congrès International sur les Ingénieries Civile. Marrakech: Mécanique et Electrique pour l’Energie CMEEE 2015.Google Scholar
  18. Malley, J. O., & Popov, E. P. (1984). Shear links in eccentrically braced frames. Journal of structural engineering, 110(9), 2275–2295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Okazaki, T., & Engelhardt, M. D. (2007). Cyclic loading behaviour of EBF links constructed of ASTM A992 steel. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 63(6), 751–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Papadrakakis, M., Fragiadakis, M., & Plevris V. (2011). COMPDYN 2011rd ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Corfu, Greece, 25–28 May 2011.Google Scholar
  21. Popov, E. P., & Engelhardt, M. D. (1988). Seismic eccentrically braced frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 10, 321–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Richards, P. W., & Uang, C. M. (2005). Effect of flange width-thickness ratio on eccentrically braced frames link cyclic rotation capacity. Journal of structural engineering, 131(10), 1546–1552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. RPA 99. (2003). Règles Parasismiques Algériennes. Ministère de l’habitat et de l’urbanisme, Centre national de recherche appliquée en génie-parasismique, Document technique règlementaire DTR-BC, 2. (In French) Google Scholar
  24. Suswanto, B., Amaliab, A. R., Wahyunic, E., & Wilsonc, J. (2017). Numerical behavior study of short link intermediate link and long link in eccentrically braced frame steel structure. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 12(21), 11460–11471.Google Scholar
  25. Uang, C. M., Bruneau, M., Whittaker, A. S., & Tsai, K. C. (2001). Seismic design of steel structures (pp. 409–462)., In: seismic design handbook Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. UBC 97. (2006). Structural design requirements Uniform Building Code 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil Engineering DepartmentUniversity of TebessaTebessaAlgeria
  2. 2.Mechanical Engineering DepartmentUniversity 1 of ConstantineConstantineAlgeria

Personalised recommendations