Correspondence
Correspondence has been received from
Ashwani Dhalwala and Peter J. Maranian
regarding the research update Steel Braced
Frames by Dr. B. Fell and Dr. A. Kanvinde
published in the The Structural Engineer,
November 2009.
Dr Fell and Dr Kanvindes research and testing
is very interesting and useful in improving the
performance of special concentric braced
frames (SCBFs). Having member sizes with
smaller b/t ratios than current limitations
appears as, demonstrated in the research
update, to be an important characteristic to
enhance the performance of braced frames.
However, a concerning statement mentioned by
them, which we have been aware of for some
time, is that braced frames can be expected to
be subjected to as much as 4% drift in a major
seismic event.
In our opinion there are many challenging
factors that need to be considered in the design
of braced frames subjected to a major seismic
event, some of which are:
1.The performance of the brace: Considerations
include:
i Providing sufcient strength to resist the
seismic forces. This may only be realistic in
one or two storey light frame buildings where
the building masses are not high and the
demands are within the strength capacity of
the braces or tall buildings which are often
dominated by wind.
ii Having a non slender brace with a moderate
degree of strength allowing some yielding
typically either at the center of the brace or
at the ends of the brace.
iii Having a slender brace allowing it to buckle
elastically until the brace curvature causes
yielding.
iv Providing buckling restrained braces which
allow yielding and prevents buckling.
v Providing sufcient strength and ductility in
the connections.
Providing some degree of energy absorption
is a desirable property for seismic resisting
systems. Measure (i) does not provide much
energy absorption except if uplift and rocking
motion occur. Global and local buckling will not
occur provided dynamic force levels do not
exceed capacity. Even if these occur there
remain concerns about low cycle fatigue
particularly at the connections. Measure (ii)
provides a moderate amount of energy
absorption but can be subject to local buckling
at the ends and / or centre of the braces
leading to instability. Local buckling can also
enhance low cycle fatigue resulting in fractures.
With measure (iii) compression braces will
buckle except that the tension braces can give
some degree of control on the amount of
buckling that occurs. There is an upper limit to
the degree of buckling when subjected to cyclic
loads. Measure (iv) provides a signicant degree
of energy dissipation. However, the relatively
high deformations can result in high demands
on the connections resulting in failure. Measure
(iv) is not part of this discussion which pertains
3 The Structural Engineer OnLIne 88 (6) 16 March 2010
to special concentric brace frames, (v)
Connections typically do not afford much
ductility unless carefully analysed and detailed
to provide energy dissipation and sufcient
consideration is given to prevent failures
occurring in localised areas particularly at
welds.
2. Braced frames, comprise braces, columns
and beams. The gusset plates are invariably
rigidly connected such that appreciable
secondary stresses and strains occur when
subject to signicant demands. Although the
primary resistance is provided by axial forces in
the braces, beams and columns all the
members can be subjected to appreciable
exural and shear demands.
3. Gusset Plate design: there has been much
research carried out particularly recently to
improve the performance of gusset plates.
Issues include developing gusset plate
geometry to provide for the transfer of forces
from the brace to the beam and columns,
allowing for yielding due to out of plane
distortion of the brace, controlling stress and
strain concentrations in the gusset plate,
controlling demands on welds connecting the
brace to the gusset plate and the gusset plate
to the beams and columns.
4. Signicant failures of braced frames were
observed following the 1994 Northridge
Earthquake and this has been shown in large
scale testing including such as that carried out
at the University of California, Berkeley, USA
(Uriz and Mahin (2004)).
5. Regarding potential failures of braced frames,
the likely behavior is that the rst storey braces
and/or their connections can fail resulting in a
weak storey rendering these types of buildings
vulnerable to signicant damage and/or
collapse.
Although improvements have and still are
being made in the design of braced frame
components, in our opinion, it will be very
difcult if not possible to achieve designs of
special concentric braced frames that can
accommodate drifts of 4%. Special moment
frame connections, which are usually subjected
to signicant yielding, can only barely sustain
4% drift. Buckling restrained braced frames,
mentioned above, that have very good yielding
characteristics usually can only sustain about 2
to 2% drift before deterioration occurs as
mentioned above.
Therefore it would seem that improvements
in the design of braced frames will still not
provide for the demands of a major seismic
event.
In view of this it would appear that SCBFs are
not a suitable lateral resisting force system for
buildings anticipated to be subjected to the
signicant drifts mentioned by Dr Fell and Dr
Kanvinde. However, SCBFs may be acceptable
and also offer economic benets in regions of
low sensitivity where high impulse seismic
demands do not usually occur. We would much
appreciate their consideration of our concerns.
Authors reply (Fell & Kavinde):
With a seismic response modication coefcient
of R = 6 and a deection amplication factor of
Cd = 5, braced frames are accepted as an
efcient and ductile lateral force resisting
system for seismic loading conditions. Sufcient
lateral strength is ensured through proper sizing
of the braces, and other members, according to
current AISC Seismic Design Provisions (2005).
It should be understood that the behavior of the
bracing elements discussed in the article is
done so assuming that the code minimum
requirements for brace forces are met. In fact, if
minimum requirements are not met, then the
braces will be subjected to larger deformation
demands.
Brace slenderness has been shown, through
numerous experimental studies, to control the
axial deformation capacity, energy dissipation,
and the force imbalance ratio between the
gross yielding and buckling limit states. To
mitigate the latter two effects, the code limits
the maximum slenderness ratio; ductility is
controlled through prescriptive b/t ratios. The
article tends to agree with the spirit of the
current Seismic Provisions considering typical
geometry and member sizes of most SCBFs and
recommends limits on b/t ratios to ensure a
ductile response. Slender braces will increase
tensile forces and reduce dissipation, both of
which may be designed for; however, economic
factors should also be considered, since
compressive strength must be maintained.
While the effects of slender bracing members
have been managed through innovative systems
such as the zipper frame (Yang et al, 2006),
these discussions fall outside the scope of the
current article.
Similarly, studies have shown the Buckling
Restrained Brace Frame (BRBF) to be an
effective lateral force resisting system. The
article does not champion one system over
another, rather discusses a recent performance
assessment on traditional braces. It should be
noted, however, that BRBFs present several
challenges over conventional braced frames.
Specically
1) The bracing members are proprietary
which may lead to additional expenses;
2) Greater structural exibility due to a
smaller steel core area;
3) Lack of long term studies, where the
dependence on advanced materials may
become an issue and;
4) Unanticipated modes of failure at the
connections.
Beams, columns, and typical gusset plate
connections should be incorporated into a
detailed model of an SCBF system. While the
current article isolated the braces to accurately
assess member performance in the absence of
secondary effects, detailed experimental and
analytical studies by Lehman et al (2008) have
investigated connection issues. The authors
certainly acknowledge the signicance of
connection behavior in braced frames and do
not minimise its importance.
Standard symmetric loading histories used in
experimental studies by Uriz (2005), Lehman et
al (2008), Fell et al (2009), and others may be
overly conservative when compared to the
response of concentrically braced frame
systems observed through nonlinear time
history analyses. Unlike moment frames, where
the response is more symmetrical (under far-
eld ground motions), braced frames tend to
show a more unsymmetrical response,
presumably because of the unsymmetrical
strength and stiffness properties once the
compressive brace buckles. In fact, when
unsymmetrical loading histories are applied to
bracing members, the deformation capacities
were as large as 6% in some experiments by
Fell et al (2009). Studies by Tremblay et al
(2003) and Yang and Mahin (2005) also
demonstrate that ductility capacity, as measured
by a maximum equivalent interstorey drift ratio,
is quite large (often greater than 4%) when
unsymmetrical loading histories are applied.
Finally, any system if detailed correctly, as
outlined by Mssrs Dhalwala and Maranian, may
be designed to adequately perform during
seismic loading. Often, it is a matter of
economic tradeoffs. However, blacklisting an
entire system (SCBFs) might be untimely,
especially if current debates in the engineering
community over its deciencies results in an
acceptable system. In this light, the design
engineer may choose to use the system if it
meets the economic tradeoffs and goals of the
project.
References
1 AISC. (2005). Seismic provisions for
structural steel buildings. ANSI/ ASIC 341-
05, ANSI/AISC 341s1-05, Chicago
2 Fell, B.V., Kanvinde, A.M., Deierlein, G.G. and
Myers, A.T. (2009). Experimental
investigation of inelastic cyclic buckling and
fracture of steel braces. J. Struct. Eng.,
ASCE, 135/1, p19-32
3 Lehman, D .E., Roeder, C. W., Herman, D.,
Johnson, S. and Kotulka, B. (2008).
Improved seismic performance of gusset
plate connections. J. Struct. Eng., ASCE,
134/6,p 890-901
4 Tremblay, R., Archambault, M. H., and
Filiatrault, A. (2003). Seismic response of
concentrically braced steel frames made with
rectangular hollow bracing members. J.
Struct. Eng., ASCE, 129/12, p1626-1636
5 Uriz, P., and Mahin, S. A. (2004). Seismic
performance assessment of concentrically
braced steel frames. Proc. 13th World Conf.
Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada,
August 2004
6 Yang, C.-S., Leon, R. T. and DesRoches, R.
(2006). On the development of zipper frames
by pushover testing. Proc. 5th Inter. Conf.
Behavior of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas
Stessa 2006, p555-561
7 Yang, F. and Mahin, S. (2005). Limiting net
section fracture in slotted tube braces.
SteelTIPS, Technical Information and Product
Service, Structural Steel Educational Council.
Moraga, CA