China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Connections
Published in Ajaya Kumar Gupta, Peter James Moss, Guidelines for Design of Low-Rise Buildings Subjected to Lateral Forces, 2020
David R. Bonneville, Keith Hjelmstad, David W. Cocke, Guy C. Morrow, James J. Mogannam, Richard N. White
Steel building structures can be classified into three main categories. The distinction among the categories arises largely from the way the structures resist lateral loads. In addition, each type has distinct issues to be addressed in the design of the connections. The three most common lateral load resisting frame configurations, shown in Figure 6.4.5, are the moment-resisting frame, the concentrically-braced frame, and the eccentrically-braced frame. The moment-resisting frame resists its loads through the development of bending moments which are transmitted among the beams and columns of the structure. The connections between the beams and columns are necessarily moment resisting or rigid. The concentrically-braced frame resists lateral force through trussing action of the triangulated frame and it is not essential that the beam-column connections be moment resisting. The bracing connections are the critical connection elements of the structure. The eccentrically-braced frame is a hybrid of the other two and hence has connection issues similar to both. It resists lateral loads through a combination of flexure and axial trussing action. The eccentric beam segment between the brace and the column must be given special consideration in detailing.
Feasibility of pushover analysis for estimation of strength demands
Published in Federico M. Mazzolani, Stessa 2003, 2018
Akshay Gupta, Helmut Krawinkler
Every structure has non-ductile failure modes, and it is a fundamental design concept to protect (shelter) elements from attracting forces that may lead to a non-ductile failure mode. For steel moment resisting frame structures, column buckling and column plastic hinging in the presence of high axial forces are considered non-ductile failure modes. This makes column axial force design and strong column – weak girder considerations two critical aspects of good seismic design. In both aspects, the pushover analysis may provide misleading information unless it is accompanied by good engineering judgment – or by a series of inelastic dynamic analyses that provide more reliable behavior information.
Seismic infill–frame interaction of masonry walls partitioned with horizontal sliding joints: analysis and simplified modeling
Published in Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2019
M. Preti, V. Bolis, A. Stavridis
Considering the effect of the contact forces between the infill and the frame, once their location and magnitude are obtained from the previous equations, the maximum shear action profiles in the windward and leeward columns can be evaluated as a function of the drift. When a moment-resisting frame is considered, as for the case of seismic RC frames, the shear action in the columns depends also on the bending moment developing at their ends. The evaluation of such moments, as a function of the drift, would require an analysis of the infilled frame composite structure, which can be accurately performed only with an explicit FE modeling the RC frame and the masonry infill. The modeling approach proposed here adopts, for the column ends, the bending moments calculated on the bare frame; the effect of the infill interaction is superposed separately (12) and the total action is obtained with Equations (13) and (14), which stem from the static scheme of Figure 6.