8/12/2012

STEEL PLATE SHEAR WALLS (SPSW),

TEBF, CFST, SF,
AND OTHER SHORT STORIES
Michel Bruneau, Ph.D., P.Eng
Professor
Department of Civil, Structural, and Environmental
Engineering

Introduction
Focus on SPSW (incl. P-SPSW, SC-SPSW), CFST, CFDST
(and maybe a bit more)
Broad overview (References provided in NASCC paper for
more in-depth study of specific topics)
Additional technical information can also be found at
www.michelbruneau.com and in Ductile Design of Steel
Structures, 2nd Edition (Bruneau et al. 2011)*.

* Subliminal message: This book will give you ultimate reading pleasure buy 100 copies now!

Acknowledgments - 1

Acknowledgments - 2

Graduate students:

Sponsors:

Samer El-Bahey (Stevenson & Associates)

National Science Foundation (EERC and NEES

Programs)

Jeffrey Berman (University of Washington, Seattle)

Daniel Dowden (Ph.D. Candidate, University at Buffalo)

New York State

Pierre Fouche (Ph.D. Candidate, University at Buffalo)

Federal Highway Administration,

Shuichi Fujikura (ARUP)

American Institute of Steel Construction

Michael Pollino (Case Western Reserve University)

Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) of

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Ronny Purba (Ph.D. Candidate, University at Buffalo)

MCEER, NCREE, Star Seismic, and Corus Steel.

Bing Qu (California Polytechnic State University)

Ramiro Vargas (Technological University of Panama)
Darren Vian (Parsons Brinkerhoff)

See others at www.michelbruneau.com

This support is sincerely appreciated. Opinions presented
are those of the author.

Example of
Implementation
(USA)

Steel Plate Shear Walls

(SPSW)
(
)
Infill (Web)
Column (VBE)
Beam (HBE)

CourtesyTony Harasimowicz, KPFF, Oregon

8/12/2012

Examples of Implementation
(USA)

Examples of Implementation
(USA)

LA Live
56 stories

Courtesy Lee Decker Herrick Corporation, Stockton, CA

Analogy to TensionTension-only
Braced Frame

Flat bar brace

Very large brace
slenderness
l d
(e.g.
(
in
i
excess of 200)

Courtesy of GFDS Engineers, San Francisco, and Matthew Eatherton, Virginia Tech

Analogy to TensionTension-only
Braced Frame

Steps to transform
into a SPSW
1)) Replace
p
braces byy
infill plate (like adding
braces)

Analogy to TensionTension-only
Braced Frame

Anchor Beam

Pinched
hysteretic curves
Increasing drift
to dissipate
further hysteretic
energy
Not permitted by
AISC Seismic
Provisions
Permitted by
CSA-S16 within
specific limits of
application

Steps to transform
into a SPSW
1)) Replace
p
braces byy
infill plate (like adding
braces)
2) For best seismic
performance, fully
welded beam-column
connections

8/12/2012

Berman/Bruneau June 12 2002 Test

End--Result
End

Cyclic (Seismic)
behavior of SPSW
Sum of
z

Fuller hysteresis
provided by moment
connections
Stiffness and
redundancy provided
by infill plate

L/tw = 3740
h/L = 0.5
(centerline
dimensions)

Example of Structural Fuse

600

Base Shear (kN)

400
200
0

-200
-400

Specimen F2
Boundary Frame

-600
600

-3

-2

-1

0
Drift (%)

-3

-2

-1

0
Drift (%)

Base Shear (kN)

400
200
0

-200
-400
-600

Forces from Diagonal Tension Field

V = t cos2()
H = t sin() cos() = t sin(2)
FH = H L = L t sin(2)

Knowing L, y, and ,
Can calculate needed
thickness (t)

Brace and Strip Models

PANEL TENSION FIELD

STRESS ACROSS UNIT

UNIT PANEL WIDTH

ALONG DIAGONAL

V =Pcos

DIAGONAL WIDTH,

P = t ds
H =Psin

RESULTANT TENSION FIELD

FORCE, P AND COMPONENTS

tw i =

ds

V =V /dx

SPSW WEB
PLATE

H =H /dx
dx

UNIT

LENGTH

ALONG BEAM

HORIZONTAL, H, AND
VERTICAL, V,
DISTRIBUTED LOADING

SPSW
HBE

2 Ai sin i sin 2 i
L sin 2 2 i
hs

hs

Equivalent Brace Model (Optional)

Strip Model

8/12/2012

Strip Model

Strips models in retrofit project

using steel plate shear walls

Developed by Thorburn, Kulak, and

Montgomery (1983), refined by Timler and
Kulak (1983))
V ifi d experimentally
Verified
i
t ll by
b
z
z
z

Elgaaly et al. (1993)

Driver et al. (1997)
Many others
Courtesy of Jay Love, Degenkolb Engineers

AISC Guide Design of SPSW

(Sabelli and Bruneau 2006
2006))

Recent Observations on SPSW

(Bruneau et al. 2011)

Review of implementations to date

Review of research results
Design requirements and process
Design examples
z
z

Region of moderate seismicity

Region of high seismicity

Other design considerations (openings, etc.)

Capacity design from Plastic

Analysis
z

Demands on VBEs

Demands on HBEs

Flexibility Factor
Factorss purpose
HBE in-span yielding
RBS connections in HBEs

P-SPSW (reduced demands)

Repair and drift demands

Plastic Analysis Approach

Yielding strips
Plastic Hinges

Used to develop
Free Body Diagrams
of VBEs and HBEs

For design
strength,
neglect
plastic hinges
4M p
1
contribution V = 2 Fy t L sin 2 + h

8/12/2012

Capacity Design of VBE

Capacity Design of VBE

Flexibility Limit Issue

Importance of
Capacity Design

Lubell et al. (2000)

observed poor
behavior of some
SPSWs (pull-in of
columns)
Others suggested
flexibility limit
desirable to prevent
slender VBEs

SPSW-4 UBC Test (Lubell et al. 2000)

SPSW-2 UBC Test (Lubell et al. 2000)

Flexibility Limit (contd)

Plate girder analogy

Flexibility Limit (contd)

Flexibility factor
o

o
o

Steel Plate Shear Wall

Plate Girder

(u o )max =
where

t = 0.7hsi 4

twi
2Ic L

u
hs

Flange can be modeled as a continuous

beam on elastic foundation

sin t
gL
2
1
sin 2
t
sin 2

t
t
t
cosh 2 + cos 2 sinh 2

t
t
t
cos 2 + sinh 2 cosh 2

Increase in streess

Infill Panel

I-Beam Plate Girder

Empirically based
flexibility limit:

t = 0.7hsi 4

0.9

xu

Flange

t 2.5

1.0

t = 3.35

Other specimens
that behaved well:

Stiffner

Infill Panel

UBC SPSW-2 and SPSW-4:

0.8
07
0.7

twi
2.5
2I c L

Solving

0.6
0.5

0.00307twi hsi 4
L
Introduced in the
CAN/CSA S16-01 and
2005 AISC Seismic
Provisions
Ic

0.4
0.3
0.2

20%

0.1
0.0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

8/12/2012

Column Design Issues (contd)

Flexibility Limit (contd)

Prevention of In-Plane Shear Yielding

SPSWs tested by Tsai and Lee (2007) exceeded flexibility

limit, yet performed comparably to SPSWs meeting limit

Evaluation of previous specimens

Case

Specimen
Number of
identification
stories

Researcher

Vn

Vsap 2000

Vu design

(kN)

(kN)

(kN)

Shear Yielding

(i) single-story specimen

1Driver Lubell
al (2000) =1.73SPSW2 Park
et al,et1997,
t

Berman and Bruneau (2005)

F2

3.35
et1 al, 2007

1
1.01
t=1.58

75

108

113

932

259

261

Yes
No

766

1361

1458

Yes

(ii) multi-story specimen-a

3

Driver et al (1998)

-b

1 73
1.73

Park et al (2007)

SC2T

1.24

Park et al, 2007, t=1.62

676

1011

SC4T

1.44

999

984

1273

No

SC6T

1.58

999

1218

1469

Yes

WC4T

1.62

560

920

1210

Yes

WC6T

1.77

560

1151

1461

Yes

Qu and Bruneau (2007)

1.95 2881

1591

2341

No

10

Tsai and Lee (2007)

SPSW N

2.53

968

776

955

No

SPSW S

3.01

752

675

705

No

11
a
b

SPSW S (t=3.01>2.5)

SPSW N (t=2.53>2.5)

999

For multi-story specimens, VBEs at the first story are evaluated.

Not applicable.
Lubell et al, 2000, t=3.35

1.2

Excessive flexibility example

1F Drift = 0.2%

/ fy

1.0

/ fy

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

8.0E+005

0.0
1.2

6.0E+005

1F Drift = 0.3%

1.0

4.0E+005

Specimen: Two-story SPSW (SPSW S)

Flexibility factor: t=3.01
=3 01
Researchers: Tsai and Lee (2007)

2 0E+005
2.0E+005
0.0E+000

/ fy

Base Shear (N)

1.0E+006

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1.2

3.5E+006

o
l

1F Drift = 0.6%

1.0

3.0E+006
2.5E+006

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

2.0E+006

0.0
1.2

1.5E+006

1F Drift = 2.0%

1.0

Specimen: Four-story SPSW

Flexibility factor: t=1.73
Researcher: Driver (1997)

1.0E+006

0.8
0.6

Lee and Tsai (2008)

0.4

Driver (1997)

0.2

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
1F Drift (%)

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

x/l

HBE Moment Diagram

SPSW

2.0
ybi+1

Compression
strut between
columns
Resultant forces
from yielding (x)
of strips

fish plate

web of intermediate beam

flange of intermediate beam

(B)

xbi

ybi
L
V

ybi-ybi+1

Vv

=0.0
=0.5
=1.0
=1.5
=2.0
Maximum

1.5

xbi+1

0.4

1.2

0.0E+000

0.6

0.0

1.2E+006

5.0E+005

HBE
FBD

0.8

0.2

/ fy

Tension Fields

/ fy

Theoretically, with infinitely elastic beam/columns, could

purposely assign high L/h ratio and low stiffness to the
boundary elements (Bruneau and Bhagwadar 2002)
Truss members 1 to 8 in compression as a result of beam and
column deflections induced by the other strips in tension
entire tension field is taken byy the last four truss members.
Behavior even worse if bottom beam free to bend.
This extreme (not practical) example nonetheless illustrates
how non-uniform
yielding can occur

Base Shear (N)

1F Drift = 0.1%

1.0

(ybi+ybi+1)(d+2hf )/2

Normalized Moment:: M(x) / (L2/8)

No

1.0
0.5

Optional Alternative:
RBS at HBE ends
In-Span HBE
Hinging

0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5

-2.0
V h(x )

0.1

0.2

0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Fraction of span from left support

0.8

0.9

Design for
wL2/4

8/12/2012

Case Study: Design Outputs

W16x36

W18x76

(0.88)

(0.99)

Monotonic Pushover
Sway and Beam Combined Mechanism
L1 / L2 +

L1 / L2 +

ns

V H

W16x89
(0.98)

tplate = 0.036 in
S
= 19.69 in
Astrip = 0.72 in2

(0.98)

W16x89

W16x40
(0.96)

(0.96)

W16x40

10 ft

tplate = 0.036 in
S
= 19.69 in
Astrip = 0.72 in2

L2

L1

i+2
Vi+2

i =1

Lp

=2

L p L1

ns

M
i =0

pbi

Plastic Hinge on the HBEs

i+1
ns
ns
1
1
+ Fyp L p (t wi t wi +1 ) sin (2 ) H i Fyp t wi L1 sin (2 ) H i
i =1 2
i =1 2

x76
W18x
(0.99
9)

Vi+1

tplate = 0.059 in
S
= 19.69 in
Astrip = 1.17 in2

(0.99
9)

tplate = 0.059 in
S
= 19.69 in
Astrip = 1.17 in2

x76
W18x

W14x61
(0.99)
x50
W18x
(0.91
1)

(0.91
1)

10 ft

W18x
x50

W12x22
(0.98)

b
Hi+2

Horizontal component of the strip yield forces

(0.95)
tplate = 0.072 in
S
= 19.69 in
Astrip = 1.42 in2

(0.96)

tplate = 0.072 in
S
= 19.69 in
Astrip = 1.42 in2

W24x62
(0.91)

W24x117
(0.98)

20 ft

20 ft

Hi+1

L2

L1

L1 ns
L
+ Fyp (t wi L2 t wi +1 L p ) cos 2 1
2 i =1
2

Vertical component of the strip yield forces

Hi

Plastic Hinge

SPSW-CD

SPSW-ID

+ Fyp t w1 L2 cos 2

Vi

W24x146
(0.96)

(0.92)
W24x146

W12x45

W24x62
(0.99)

10 ft

W24x62
(0.99)

W12x19

Strips remained
elastic

Lp

Case Study: Strength per this

plastic mechanism is 13% less
than per sway mechanism

Design HBEs for wL2/4

Cyclic Pushover Analysis

Cyclic Pushover Analysis

Monotonic: in-span plastic hinge + significant HBE vertical deformation

Cyclic: to investigate whether phenomenon observed in monotonic
analysis may lead to progressively increasing deformations
4%

10.8

3%

7.2

2%

3.6

1%

0%

-3.6

-1%

-7.2

-2%

Vertical Displac
cement (in) .

14.4

Lateral Drift (%)

Top Floor Displacement, (in)

Loading history:

-4%

-3%

4
Number of Cycles, N

Significant
accumulation of plastic
incremental deformation
on SPSW-ID

Maximum Rotations:
SPSW-ID = 0.062 radians
SPSW-CD = 0.032 radians

SPSW-CD

-2.5

SPSW-ID

-3.0
10.8

14.4

Plastic Analysis Approach

SPSW-ID

0.0

-1.0

HBE2

Yielding strips
Plastic Hinges

1.0 SPSW-CD

M/M p

0.5
0.0
-0.5

deserve more attention

in future research

-7.2 -3.6
0
3.6
7.2
Lateral Displacement (in)

HBE3 Vertical Displacements

-0.5

AISC 2005 Seismic Specifications:

Ordinary-type connections be
used in SPSW

Time history analyses

show same behavior, with
vertical displacements
increasing with severity of
ground excitation level

0.5
M/M p

Curves bias toward one direction

1.0

4%

-2.0

Cyclic Pushover Analysis

Comparing rotation demands at
beam to column connection

3%

-1.5
15

-4%
1

2%

-1.0

-3%

-14.4

Lateral Drift
-1%
0%
1%

-0.5

-14.4 -10.8
-10.8

-2%

0.0

-1.0
-2.5

HBE2

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

/ 0.03

Normalized Moment Rotation (/0.03)

For design
strength,
neglect
plastic hinges
4M p
1
contribution V = 2 Fy t L sin 2 + h

8/12/2012

Single Story SPSW Example

Plastic Analysis Approach

Design

Interpretation #2:
Lateral load Vu=

Interpretation #1:
Lateral load Vu=

Force assigned to infill panel

V =

4M p
1
Fy t L sin 2 +
2
h

Vdesign =

Single Story SPSW Example

2.25
2.00

50000
Overstrength from
capacity design

40000

1.50

Weighht (lb)

Vplastic/ Vd
design

1.75

Case Study

= 45D
= 1.0

L/h=0.8
L/h=1.00
L/h=1.5
L/h=2
L/h=2.5

1
f yp t w Lh sin ( 2 )
2

1 25
1.25

30000
20000

1.00

Balance point

0.75

balance = 1 +

0.50

1L

2 h 1 + 1 2

10000

0
AISC

Design force to be assigned

to boundary moment frame

0.25

PROPOSED
Panel HBE

VBE

75%
Total

40%

0.00
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Quantifying
Performance

Seismic Performance Factors

Parameter

Time history analyses of SPSWs

designed with various k value
revealed different drift response
Need to rigorously quantify
significance in terms of seismic
performance
FEMA P695 procedure is a
useful tool for that purpose

SW320

SW320K

Reference

1. Design Stage
R

ATC63 Design 3-Story SPSW Big Size 100%.xls

176

176

ATC63 Design 3-Story SPSW Big Size 49%.xls

Vmax

495

226

y,eff

1.80

1.8

8.86

8.64

= Vmax/Vdesign

2.81

1.29

T = u/y,eff

4.92

4.80

SCT

3.60

2.29

IDA Curve for SW320 Sa PDGravity+Leaning.xls

SMT

1.50

1.50

IDA Curve for SW320K Sa PDGravity+Leaning.xls

CMR = SCT/SMT

2.40

1.53

Vdesign
2. Nonlinear Static (Pushover) Analysis

Pushover Curve for SW320 and SW320K.xls

Included SH = 2%, d = 1.2 and = 0.9

3. Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA)

8/12/2012

Typical Archetype Model

Component Degradation Model

OPENSEES Model:

Fiber Hinges on HBE and

VBE ends

My

Mcap
SH =
2%

Py

EI

Axial Hinges on Strips

EA

-y y
Symmetri
c

Gravity loads applied on

SPSW according to its
tributary area.

0.081

0.039 0.064

y
No
Compression
Strength

-My

(a) Boundary
Elements

Remaining loads applied on

Leaning columns

Pcap
SH =
2%

9.0y 10.7

0.015 0.018
(Axial
Strain)

(b) Strips

Failure mode developed based on 33 previously tested SPSW specimens

Degradation model verified on 1 to 4 story SPSW specimens

Dual Strip Model

P- Leaning
Column

Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) Results - Sa

Seismic Performance Factors

SW0320

Parameter

SW320

SW320K

Reference

1. Design Stage
R

Probability off Collapse

0.8

SW0320K

ATC63 Design 3-Story SPSW Big Size 100%.xls

176

176

ATC63 Design 3-Story SPSW Big Size 49%.xls

Vmax

495

226

y,eff

Vdesign
2. Nonlinear Static (Pushover) Analysis

0.6

1.80

1.8

8.86

8.64

SW320
Lognormal SW320

= Vmax/Vdesign

2.81

1.29

SW320K
Lognormal SW320K

T = u/y,eff

4.92

4.80

SCT

3.60

2.29

IDA Curve for SW320 Sa PDGravity+Leaning.xls

SMT

1.50

1.50

IDA Curve for SW320K Sa PDGravity+Leaning.xls

CMR = SCT/SMT

2.40

1.53

0.4

0.2

0
0

5
Spectral Acceleration, ST (Tn = 0.36 Sec.), g

Seismic Performance Factors, Cont.

10

Pushover Curve for SW320 and SW320K.xls

Included SH = 2%, d = 1.2 and = 0.9

3. Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA)

Fragility Curve: DM (Inter(Inter-story Drift) for SW320

1

Parameter

SW320

SW320K

Reference

4. Performance Evaluation
0.36

0.36

SDC

Dmax

Dmax

FEMA P695 (ATC63) Table 5-1

SSF (T, T)

1.25

1.25

FEMA P695 (ATC63) Eq. 5-5

FEMA P695 (ATC63) Table 7-1b

1.91

ACMR = SSF (T, T) x CMR

3.00

RTR

0.4

0.4

FEMA P695 (ATC63) Section 7.3.1

DR

0.2

0.2

FEMA P695 (ATC63) Table 3-1: (B - Good)

TD

0.35

0.35

FEMA P695 (ATC63) Table 3-2: (C - Fair)

FEMA P695 (ATC63) Table 5-3: (B - Good)

MDL

0.2

0.2

tot = sqrt (RTR + DR + TD + MDL )

0.60

0.60

ACMR20% (tot)

1.66

1.66

FEMA P695 (ATC63) Table 7-3

ACMR10% (tot)

2.16

2.16

FEMA P695 (ATC63) Table 7-3

Statusi

Pass

Pass

FEMA P695 (ATC63) Eq. 7-6

StatusPG

Pass

0.8
Probability off Exceedance

0.6
DM: 1% Drift
DM: 2% Drift
DM: 3% Drift

0.4

DM: 4% Drift
DM: 5% Drift
DM: 6% Drift

0.2

DM: 7% Drift

NOT Pass FEMA P695 (ATC63) Eq. 7-7

DM: Collapse Point

5. Final Results
R

Try Again

Try Again

Design Level
Sa = 1.5g

2.8

4.9

Try Again

Try Again

Cd = R

10

Spectral Acceleration, S T (Tn = 0.36 Sec.), g

8/12/2012

Fragility Curve: DM (Inter(Inter-story Drift) for SW320K

1

Perforated Steel Plate Shear

Walls (P
(P--SPSW)

Probability off Exceedance

0.8

0.6

DM: Drift 1%

(to reduce tonnage of steel

in low
low--rise SPSWs)

DM: Drift 2%
DM: Drift 3%
0.4

DM: Drift 4%
DM: Drift 5%
DM: Drift 6%

0.2

DM: Drift 7%
DM: Collapse Point
0
0
Design Level
Sa = 1.5g

10

Spectral Acceleration, ST (Tn = 0.36 Sec.), g

Infill Overstrength

Available infill plate material might be

thicker or stronger than required by design.
Several solution to alleviate this concern
z
z
z

Light-gauge cold-rolled steel

Low Yield Steel (LYS) steel
Perforated Steel Plate Shear Wall

Perforated Wall Concept

4

Specimen P at 3.0% Drift

Perforated Layout, Cont.

Sdiag

Typical
diagonal strip

10

8/12/2012

Typical Perforated Strip ((Vian

Vian 2005)

Typical Strip Analysis Results (ST1)

At monitored strain emax = 20%, D = 100 mm (D/S
(D/Sdiag = 0.25)

Sdiag = 400 mm

2
ABAQUS S4 Quadrant Model
D
(a) Strip Mesh and Deformed Shape (Deformation Scale Factor = 4)

L = 2000 mm

(b) Maximum In-Plane Principal Stress Contours

t = 5 mm
not actual mesh

D = variable

Sdiag

Sdiag

(c) Maximum In-Plane Principal Strain Contours

FLTB Model

FLTB Model: Typical Panel Results

At monitored strain max = 20%, D = 200 mm (D/
(D/S
Sdiag = 0.471)

5.0
Strip emax = 20%
Strip emax = 15%
Strip emax = 10%
Strip emax = 5%
Strip emax = 1%

Total Uniform Strrip Elongation, un (%)

4.5
4.0
3.5

Panel emax = 20%

Panel emax = 15%
Panel emax = 10%
Panel emax = 5%
Panel emax = 1%

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Perforation Ratio, D/S diag

Maximum In-Plane Principal Strain Contours

Shear Strength vs. Frame Drift

3000

Infill Shear Strength: RF

Model
0.9
0.8

2000
1500
1000
500

51.5%

0.7

emax = 20%
emax = 15%
emax = 10%
emax = 5%
emax = 1%
Solid
D050 (D/Sdiag = 0.12)
D100 (D/Sdiag = 0.24)
D150 (D/Sdiag = 0.35)
D200 (D/Sdiag = 0.47)
D250 (D/Sdiag = 0.59)
D300 (D/Sdiag = 0.71)
Bare

Vyp.perf / V yp

Total Shear Sttrength, Vy (kN)

1.0

2500

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

D
V yp
V yp. perf = 1
Sdiag

Predicted (Eq. 4.3)

= 5%
= 4%
= 3%
= 2%
= 1%
Linear Reg.

0.2
0.1

correction factor:

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0
Frame Drift,

4.0

5.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

= 0.7

1.0

D/S diag

11

8/12/2012

Implementation of P
P--SPSW
Replaceability of Web Plate
in SPSW

Courtesy of Robert Tremblay, Ecole Polytechnique, et Eric Lachapelle, Lainco Inc, Montreal

Experimental Program

Phase I: Pseudo-dynamic load to an

earthquake having a 2% in 50 years
probability of occurrence.
(Chi Chi CTU082EW--250 PGA=0.67g)
(Chi_Chi_CTU082EW--250
PGA=0 67g)
Cut-out and replace webs at both levels
Phase II: Repeat of pseudo-dynamic load to
an earthquake having a 2% in 50 years
probability of occurrence.
Subsequently cyclic load to failure.

Pseudo--dynamic Test (contd)

Pseudo

Web replacement

Buckled web plate

from first pseudodynamic test cut out
and new web plate
welded in place

Pseudo--dynamic Test (contd)

Pseudo

1st story

2nd story

Specimen after the maximum peak drifts of 2.6% at lower

story and 2.3% at upper story in pseudo-dynamic test.

12

8/12/2012

Subsequently Cyclic Test

Subsequently Cyclic Test (contd)

Severe plate damage and intermediate beam damage also

occurred at drifts between 2.5% and 5%

2nd story after interstory drift of 5%

1st Story after interstory drift of 5%

Self-Centering SPSW
Self-Centering
Self(Resilient) SPSWs
(SC--SPSWs)
(SC

Concept:
Replace rigid HBE to VBE joint connections
of a conventional SPSW with a rocking
connection combined with Post-Tension
elements.
y Energy dissipation provided by yielding

of infill plate only (not shown in figure)

y HBE, VBE and P.T. components

designed to remain essentially elastic

y Elastic elongation of P.T. about a rocking

point provides a self-centering

mechanism

UB Test-Setup (Full Infill Plate Frames)

UB Specimen (Rocking about Flanges)

13

8/12/2012

Accommodating Beam Growth with

Large Columns

Courtesy of Greg MacRae, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

NewZ-BREAKSS Rocking Connection

Rocking Point (Ea. End of HBE)
W6x VBE

Radius Cut-Out
Flange Reinf. Plate

UB Test Frame:
Additional Test Frame
Configurations:

Test Frames w/
Infill Strips

New Zealand-inspired Buffalo

Resilient Earthquake-resistant
Auto-centering while Keeping
Slab Sound (NewZ-BREAKSS)
Rocking Connection

Frame w/ NewZBREAKSS Conn.

NewZ-BREAKSS Rocking Connection

Light Gage
Web Plate
W8x HBE

Continuity Plate
VBE Web Dblr Plate
Post-Tension
(Ea. Side of HBE Web)

P tT i
Post-Tension
Eccentricity

Stiffener Plates (Typ.)

Cant HBE Web (Ea. End of HBE)

Shear Plate w/
Horiz. Long Slotted Holes

Comments:
Schematic detail shown of UB 1/3 test frame connection currently being tested at UB
Eliminates PT Frame expansion by HBE rocking at the beam top flanges only

NewZ-BREAKSS Rocking Connection

NewZ-BREAKSS Rocking Connection

14

8/12/2012

UB NewZ-BREAKSS Test Frame

UB NewZ-BREAKSS Test Frame

UB NewZ-BREAKSS Test Results

NewZ-BREAKSS Hysteresis
Full Infill Plates
-3.4
60

-2.7

50
40

Base Shear (kips)

-2.0

0.167y
0.33y
0.67 y
1.0y
2y
3
3y

30
20

-1.4

Top Story Drift (%)

-0.7 0.0 0.7 1.4

2.0

2.7

3.4

4y
2% drift
2.5% drift
3% drift

Comments:
Displacement control at top
level actuator with a slaved
Force control at level 1 & 2
2.

10

Force control load pattern of

1, 0.658, 0.316 at level 3, 2, 1
actuators used based on
approximate first mode shape.

0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-5

-4

-3

-2
-1
0
1
2
Top Story Displacement (in)

Discrete Strips Alternative

NewZ-BREAKSS Hysteresis
Full Infill Plates - SAP2000
Top Story Drift (%)
-4.5

-3

-1.5

1.5

4.5

80

Base Shear (k
(kips)

60
40
20

1)
2)
3)
4)

Test Frame - 2x0.5" strds

APT = 4x0.5" strds
APT = 6x0.5" strds
APT = 6x0.6" strds

0
-20

*Residual Drift
1) 1.85%
2) 1.0%
3) 0.85%
4) 0.58%
*modify HBE/VBE
sizes as required

-40
-60
-80
-8

-6

-4

-2

Top Story Displacement (in)

15

8/12/2012

UB Test Results NewZ-BREAKSS

Top Story Drift (%)
-6 -4.5 -3 -1.5

1.5

4.5

No separation of the
infill strips occurred
(also observed with
the flange rocking
case).
Testing stopped to
be able to reused
VBEs for subsequent
shake table testing.

60

Base Shear (kips)

SAP2000: 10% Comp.

40
20
0
-20
PT Yielding Occured At
Approx. 4.5% Top Story
Drift

-40
-60
-10.5 -7.5

-4.5

-1.5

1.5

4.5

7.5

10.5

Top Story Displacement (in)

Eccentrically Braced Frame

Tubular-link Eccentrically
TubularBraced Frames (TEBF)
a.k.a.
EBF with BuiltBuilt-up Box Links

Proof--of
Proof
of--Concept Testing

Tubular--link EBF
Tubular

EBFs with wide-flange (WF) links require

lateral bracing of the link to prevent lateral
torsional buckling
Lateral bracing is difficult to provide in
b
bridge piers
Development of a laterally
Fyf
tw
stable EBF link is warranted
Fyw
Consider rectangular crosstf
section No LTB

16

8/12/2012

Finite Element Modeling of

Proof--of
Proof
of--Concept Testing

Link Testing Results

Large Deformation Cycles of Specimen X1L1.6

Hysteretic Results for Refined ABAQUS Model and Proof-of-Concept

Experiment

Design Space
Stiffened Links
Unstiffened Links
0.64

1.67

E
Fyw

Implementation
of TEBF

b
tf
0.64

= 1.6

E
Fyw
d
tw

E
Fyf

Some slenderness limits

accidentally missing
from AISC 341-10

Towers of temporary
structure to support
and provide seismic
resistance
i t
to
t deck
d k off
self-anchored
suspension segment of
East Span of SanFrancisco-Oakland Bay
Bridge during its
construction

Earthquakes

Multi--Hazard Design Concept

Multi
Why Multi-Hazard Engineering Makes Sense?

17

8/12/2012

Storm Surge or Tsunami

Collision

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/bridge/Manuals/LRFD/June2007Workshop/10%20Pier%20Protection.pdf

Fire

Blast

Suicide truck-bomb collapsed the Al-Sarafiya bridge and sent cars

toppling into the Tigris River (AP, (Baghdad, Iraq, April 2007)

Multi--hazard solution
Multi

A true multi-hazard engineering solution is a

concept that simultaneously has the desirable
characteristics to protect and satisfy the multiple
(contradicting) constraints inherent to multiple
hazards
Needs holistic engineering design that address all
hazards in integrated framework
A single cost single concept solution (not a
combination of multiple protection schemes)
Pay-off: Reach/protect more cities/citizens

Concrete--Filled Steel Tubes

Concrete
(CFST)
for blast and seismic
performance

18

8/12/2012

CFST Piles

The Loma Prieta and

Northridge earthquakes in
California and the Kobe,
Japan quake, along with reexamination of largediameter cylinder-pile
cylinder pile
behavior in the Alaskan
earthquake of 1964, have
demonstrated the superior
ductility of concrete-filled
steel tubular piles.
(Ben C. Gerwick Jr., ASCE Civil
Engineering Magazine, May 1995)

CFST Column Specimen (1st Series)

CFST Column Test Results

Test 5: Bent 1, C5 (1.3X, W, Z=0.75m)

16.5

164
CAP-BEAM
C5

C4

68.5

69.5

6
6

5
5

59

C6

Bridge carrying Broadway Ave. over the railroad in City of Rensselaer, NY

Built 1975. No major rehab, although joints and wearing surface were redone

4
4

Dmax
= 76 mm

32

FOUNDATION
BEAM

Gap
= 3 mm

164
Concrete-Filled Steel
Tube

Concrete (no rebars)

Damage Progress of CFST Column

(Column Deformations)
1.2 deg
(0.021 rad)

2.2 deg
(0.038 rad)

4.9 deg
(0.085 rad)

18.7 deg
(0.327 rad)

Fracture of
Column

Seismically
Designed
Ductile Column

10.5 deg
(0.182 rad)

5.0 deg
(0.088 rad)

21.9 deg
(0.382 rad)

Buckling of
Steel Tube

Explosion
3.8 deg
(0.067 rad)

8.3 deg
(0.144 rad)

17.0 deg
(0.297 rad)

Fracture of
Steel Tube

Covered
Concrete

Plastic
Deformation
(Test 6 : B2-C4)

Blew
Away

Plastic
Deformation
(Test 9 : B2-C6)

On-set of
Column Fracture
(Test 10 : B2-C5)

Post-fracture
of Column
(Test7 : B2-C4)

Shear Failure
Seismic Design
Alone is not a
Guarantee of MultiHazard Performance
Need Optimal
Seismic/Blast
Design

19

8/12/2012

Comparison of Blast Parameters

Jacketed NonNonDuctile Column

(Seismic Retrofit)

CFST Tests

0.10W
Test 5
Test 4

250

750

Test 3
Test 9,10
Test 7

Test 6

Comparison of Column Damage

Horizontal
Deformation
(mm)

Test 1,3 Test 2,4

38

59

80

10

10

17

15

102
123
144
165

19

19

11

21

23

12

24

27

12

28

31

188

13

32

35

216

14

37

39

242

15

40

44

263

16

45

49

285

16

50

52

309

15

52

56

328

16

57

61

347

15

62

65

367

14

67

71

379

All longitudinal
bars fractured.

Test 6 CFST C4
(x = 1.6 X)

Test 1 RC1
(x = 2.16 X)

0.7 deg
(0.012 rad)

All longitudinal
71
bars fractured.
75

13

74

Standoff
Distance
(in X)

3
3.25

Calibration Work
Fracture of
Column

Explosion

Blew
Away

250

3.8 deg
(0.067 rad)

18

Test 2

Test 1

0.8 1.3
2
0.6 1.1 1.6 2.16

24
(Max)

0.55W

Reaction
Frame

Again Shear Failure

Same conclusions

1.2 deg
(0.021 rad)

RC, SJ Tests

79

2.9 deg
(0.051 rad)

Test 2 RC2
(x = 3.25 X)

Test 3 SJ2
(x = 2.16 X)

Test 4 SJ1
(x = 3.25 X)

Blast Simulation Results

e
)

Post-fracture
of Column
(Test7 : B2-C4)

Proposed Multi Hazard Concept

Analysis of concrete filled double skin tubes (CFDST)
showed they can offer similar performance as CFST
CFDST concentrates materials where needed for higher
strength-to-weight ratio

20

8/12/2012

Blast Test Results

S1 @ 3% Drift

S1 @ 7.5% Drift

S1 @ 10% Drift

S5 @ 3% Drift

S5 @ 6% Drift

S5 @ 7.5% Drift

Enhanced Steel Jacketed Column

21

8/12/2012

ERDC Test on ESJC

Results

Structural Fuses (SF)

Analogy

structural fuse, d

mass, m

Sacrificial element to protect the rest of the

system.
frame f
frame,
braces, b

Ground Motion, g(t)

Model with
Nippon Steel BRBs

Benefits of Structural Fuse Concept:

Seismically induced damage is

concentrated on the fuses V
V
Following a damaging
earthquake only the fuses V
would need to be replaced VV
Once the structural fuses are
removed, the elastic structure
returns to its original position
(self-recentering capability)

Total

Eccentric Gusset
Gusset--Plate

K1 = Kf

Structural Fuses

K1

yd
yf

Ka

ya

Frame

Kf

yf

22

8/12/2012

Test 1
First Story BRB

Test 1

(PGA = 1g)

40

1st Story Axiaal Force (kips)

30
20
10
0
-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

-10

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

-20
-30
-40
Axial Deformation (in)

Test 1 (Nippon Steel BRB Frame)

First Story Columns Shear
1st Story Column
ns Shear (kN)

100

-5

75
50
25
0
-4

-3

-2

-1

-25

-50
-75
-100
Inter-Story Drift (mm)

ABC Bridge Pier with

Structural Fuses
Specimen S2S2-1

New Short Length BRB

Developed by Star Seismic

23

8/12/2012

Specimen with BRB Fuses

Specimen with BRB Fuses

Controlled Rocking/Energy
Dissipation System

Rocking Frames (RF)

Absence of base of leg

connection creates a rocking
bridge pier system partially
isolating the structure
Installation of steel yielding
devices (buckling-restrained
braces) at the steel/concrete
interface controls the rocking
response while providing
energy dissipation
Retrofitted Tower

Existing Rocking Bridges

South Rangitikei Rail Bridge

Lions Gate Bridge North Approach

Static, Hysteretic Behavior of Controlled

Rocking Pier

FPED=0
FPED=w/2

Device Response

24

8/12/2012

Design Procedure
Design Chart:

Design Constraints
z

h/d=4
10

Acceleration

Limit forces through

vulnerable members
using structural fuses

Velocityy
Control impact energy to
foundation and impulsive
loading on tower legs
by limiting velocity

Displacement Ductility
Limit L of
specially detailed,

ductile fuses
z

Auub

Aub ((in2)

<1 Inherent re-centering (Optional)

100

200

Lub

300

400

Lub (in.)

constraint1
constraint2
constraint3
constraint4
constraint5

Synthetic EQ 150% of Design Free Rocking

Synthetic EQ 150% of Design

Free Rocking

Synthetic EQ 150% of Design

TADAS Case L=1.0

Synthetic EQ 175% of Design - Viscous Dampers

Conclusions

Recent research has enhanced understanding

of seismic behavior of SPSW
z
z
z
z
z

Enhanced FBD for capacity design of HBEs/VBEs

Revisited purpose of flexibility factor
Significance of HBE in
in-span
span hinging
Implication of balanced design
Post-EQ replaceability and expected drift demands

P-SPSW: Cost-effective for low-rise SPSWs

SC-SPSW: Promising resilient system
TEBF, CFST, CFDST, SF, Rocking strategies

25