discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222362993
CITATIONS
READS
65
89,892
2 authors, including:
Mahmoud Reza Maheri
Shiraz University
91 PUBLICATIONS 634 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
~ ,
EngineeringStructures,Vol.
PII: S0141-0296(97)00041-2
ELSEVIER
A. Sahebi
1.
Introduction
1991, Bush et al. 6"7 used a complex steel frame-bracing system in a concrete frame and obtained a substantial increase
in the in-plane shear resistance of the frame.
In all the above investigations, bracing was applied to
the concrete frame indirectly through a steel-frame, itself
confined in the concrete frame. In this method an appropriate steel frame is first encased in, and fixed to, the concrete
frame, The steel bracing is then connected to this frame.
As a result the transfer of load between the concrete frame
and steel bracing is achieved indirectly through a steel
frame. This rather elaborate 'indirect bracing system' can
be costly and economically non-viable. When increasing
the shear resistance of an already existing concrete frame
is desired (e.g. seismic strengthening of existing buildings),
an additional steel frame within the concrete frame might,
in certain cases, be a necessity. This is because, due to the
increased seismic load, the concrete columns and beams
themselves may require strengthening. However, for a
frame yet to be designed and constructed, the extra seismic
load transferred through bracing can be included in the
design load for the concrete frame and the need for an
expensive steel frame is obsolete. Another shortcoming of
the indirect bracing system is that it is susceptible to the
diverse effects of dynamic interaction between the steel
frame and the concrete frame during earthquake dynamic
loading. In a 'direct bracing system' steel bracing is directly
connected to the concrete frame, on the other hand,
In order to increase the seismic strength of framed structures, steel bracing or shear walls are often used, It is cornmon to use steel bracing in steel-framed structures and
shear walls in reinforced concrete structures. However, in
recent years there have been suggestions for the use of steel
bracing in reinforced concrete structures. Considering the
ease of construction and the relatively low cost, steel bracing appears to be an attractive alternative to other shear
resisting elements such as concrete and masonry shear
walls or a rigid frame system. Reports of the use of steelbracing in RC structures can be found in the recent literature, but very little is known as to the level of effectiveness
of this strengthening system in RC structures,
In 1980, Sugano and Fujimura ~ conducted a number of
tests on some model RC frames braced with ' K ' and ' X '
bracing as well as similar model frames strengthened by
masonry and concrete in-fills. The aim of these investigations was to determine the level of effectiveness of each
system in increasing the in-plane strength and ductility of
the frame. In 1981 Higashi and Endo 2 and Kavamata and
Ohnuma 3 also carried out studies on the use of concentric
and eccentric bracing in concrete frames. The results indicated the possible effective use of these strengthening
methods. Ohishi et a l . 4 and Segiguchi et al. 5 carried out
similar investigations on the use of V-braces. In 1987 and
1018
1019
UIt. strength
Frame
2.
Test models
Stress
Bending
33 075
Axial
Unbraced
Estimated
load at
failure
Elastic
analysis
2184
Shear
(tonne)
8485
3.9*
853
6.2
2440
353
6.9
Comp.braced
Bending
Axial
Shear
33 075
2184
2440
2237
93.2
93.2
14.8"
23.4
26.2
Tens.braced
Bending
Axial
Shear
35 700
11 550
2440
602
93.2
2523
14.1"
19.2
26.2
Bending
Shear
35 700
11 550
2400
313
1314
54.7
32.0
Axial
X-braced
27.2*
44.6
J
I
~
~"
Ill
"_/~~_
col
~b~
Figure 1.
The diagonal cross-bracing system was designed to carry
about 75% of the total earthquake load (as recommended
by some seismic codes, although a design engineer may
change this percentage depending on the level of forces
involved, limitation of the frame size, etc.). The estimated
in-plane strength of the unbraced frame was 3.9 tonne
(Table 1). This is equivalent to a lateral load of about 2.7
tonne (to be assumed as 25% of the total earthquake load).
The cross-bracing was, therefore, designed to carry an equivalent of 8.1 tonne of the lateral load. To this end each of
the diagonal braces consisted of two equal angles
(25 25 mm) having a total cross-sectional area of
2.84 cm, welded edge-to-edge to each other. At the connection to the frame, the braces were welded to the sides of
an in-plane steel plate, itself welded to an equal angle positioned and pre-cast at the corners of the frame (Figure 2).
To reduce the buckling tendency of the compression brace
eq
t
'*" t
_~ ~
~
,~c , ,
"-- --~"
I
~,,.
,J
]
1020
II!1
I;
(a)
....
(b)
,~so-
~,,~ No.C~rve
1
Looai-Difllctio~
for Cllcle No.
4. l. Test set-up
To investigate the in-plane shear strength of the frame it is
necessary to subject the frame to horizontal cyclic loading,
In the absence of a reaction-wall it was decided to use a
compression testing machine for application of the load. To
convert the compressive load of the test machine into a
shear load for the frame, the frames were, in turn, placed
diagonally at a 45 angle in the machine. The vertical diagonal, in this way, acted as a compression diagonal and the
horizontal diagonal acted as a tensile member, as illustrated
in Figure 3 and seen in Figure 4. In this way the applied
compressive load acts as an in-plane shear load on the
frame. In each test the shortening and elongation of diagonals due to the incrementally applied load was measured
through two strain gauges positioned on the diagonals
t500
-, ,25o
~ 1ooo
~
~5o
~0o
2 5 ~ o ~
i ~='Ii i ; ~ 2'~iz~'~
~';0 '~.~';
De/tecton (era)
0.0~5
(Figure 5).
2250
F~'~
No. 1
LooMi-Di~ctio~ C~rve
J~
./y/"
000
175o
1500"
"~
1250
1000
150
500
25
'o:oVo. . . . .
z~
Deflect~ovt (c'm.)
1021
Prcwae No. t
4500-
Load-D=.~c~;o~ Cu~e
4i
3500 ~
~
Loo~-D=~c~,~
ecu~e
40002
3500 ~
3000
~5oo
3000:
25oo i
20O0!
2000 z
1500!
15002
1000!
10oo::
,OO,o
o:!Eo
"o'~
Co11~,1~'ess~ Go,lzge
IIII, 'S;;7:
----
~.b'o~' '
De.fZec~o'r,. ( c m )
(c~)
8
The final cycle (pma'= p.), load-deflection curve for
unbraced frame, indicating identical behaviour on tension and
compression diagonals
Figure
1 0 The final cycle (Pr~ax= P.) load-deflection curve for
cross-braced frame
Figure
(Figure 10).
(iv) Another interesting observation was the manner in
which the two braces carried the load. With increasing load the rate of load-bearing of the tension and
compression braces was different. In other words, it
appears that the two braces take turns in carrying the
increased load, or as the rate of load-bearing of tension brace increased, the rate for compression brace
reduced and vice-versa. This point can be noted in
the load-deflection curve for the two braces shown
in Figure 11.
(v) The failure of the f r a m e - b r a c e system started with
the appearance of flexure cracks at the corners of the
tension diagonal at the load of 8.0 tonne. At higher
loads flexure cracks appeared at the corners of the
frame and eventually at the load of 12.5 tonne the
tension brace failed (Figure 12). The failure of the
tension brace occurred at its welded connection to
the mid-span plate. If the connection weld was more
9000=
'
70002
8000 ~
5OOO~
40002
.....
3000 i
,,
# /"
--=--== Comp'tes~.o~
Di.agor,=~
,ooZ
De fleet~.o~z (c.rrQ
Figure 11 A t y p i c a l l o a d - d e f l e c t i o n
Figure9
frame
curve
for
cross-braced
1022
Figure 13 Buckling failure of the compression brace immediately after the failure of tension brace
2500-
Loa~-Def~C~e
ctto~
~ , , ~ ~o. 3
Io" cyoz,so.
3000
~~On~
2600
4.4.
Testing o f c o m p r e s s i o n - b r a c e d f r a m e
2000
0 ~ , ........
, .
~..
.. .
.. .
. ..
. ..
.. .
.. .
. ..
. ..
..
i o
1023
4.5.
~it.___j!~
_
~~-~
~]
~,~>~
/.~
~
..
~
co~
(b~
~, ~,
l
~
~
-----~,~'/~1
~
~
--
II
~ , / ~ 1
1
--
-4
c:)
cd)
5. Brace-frame connection
The advantage of joining steel bracing directly to the concrete frame is that the connection is easy to construct and
incurs little cost. However, the connection should be strong
enough to safely transfer the load between the brace and
the frame. This should be true for both connections, set-up
during the construction of the concrete frame and connections constructed after the construction of the frame. A
number of connection arrangements of both types are
shown in Figure 17. A series of tests on full-scale connection models were also carded out. Two connection types
(a) and (d) (Figure 17) were tested. Connection type (a)
is used to connect the bracing system to the frame prior to
the casting of concrete. In this system the connecting plates
and anchorage system are pre-cast in the frame. A test setup was arranged to apply a 45-angle tension on the connecting plate. The connection appeared to be capable of
2750:
,6ooi
F R A M E NO. 4
LOAD DRFI~CTION CURVE FOR
~v~
~ro. 1
zz6o
-" ~ooo
,~so
Inoo
,2so
1ooo
~o
see
~
o'.o'~b' . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- - - ~,~s,o. =.~o~.~
Eb'ib' .............
blb'hb" . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Eb~b' .............
b:b~
(~ )
Figure 16 A typical load-deflection curve for the tension~mr~cr~o~
existing frames
carrying large loads. The 1 cm thick connection plate
buckled under the load, but the anchorage system remained
intact. The connection type (d), used for connecting steel
braces to an already existing frame, could carry a more
limited load in similar tests. The expanding anchor bolts
tended to either pull clean out of the concrete frame or pull
a section of concrete out with themselves, Further investigations are required for developing a more appropriate
anchorage system for connecting braces to already existing
concrete frames.
6.
Conclusions
1024
References
1 Sugano, S. and Fujimura, M. 'Seismic strengthening of existing
reinforced concrete buildings', Proc. 7th World Conf. on Earthquake
Engineering, Turkey, 1980, 4 (1), Turkey, 449-456
Higashi, Y., Endo, T. and Shimizu, Y. 'Experimental studies on retrofitting of reinforced concrete structural members', Proc. 2nd Seminar
on Repair and Retrofit of Structures, Ann Arbor, Michigan, National
Science Foundation, 1981, pp. 126-155
3 Kawamata, S. and Ohnuma, M. 'Strengthening effect of eccentric
steel braces to existing reinforced concrete frames', Proc. 2nd Sereinar on Repair and Retrofit qf Structures, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
National Science Foundation, 1981, pp. 262-269.
4 Ohishi, H. et al. 'A seismic strengthening design and practice of an
existing reinforced concrete school building in Shejuoka City', Proc.
9th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Japan, 1988, Vol. III.
5 Sekiguchi, I. 'Seismic strengthening of an existing steel reinforced
concrete city office building in Shijuoka, Japan', Proc. 9th World
Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Japan, 1988, Vol. Ill
6 Bush, T. D. 'Seismic strengthening of a reinforced concrete frame',
Ph.D. thesis, The University of Austin, Texas, 1987.
7 Bush, T. D., Jones E. A. and Jirsa J. O. 'Behaviour of RC frame
strengthened using structural steel bracing', Proc. ASCE, J. Struct.
Engng, 1991, 117 (4), 1115-1126