Anda di halaman 1dari 17

# ANDY PRABOWO1,2

1Civil
Engineering Department Tarumanagara University

## YOGYAKARTA, 26-27 OCTOBER 2016 1

INTRODUCTION

CONCLUDING LITERATURE
REMARKS STUDY

OUTLINE

## RESULTS AND CASE STUDY &

DISCUSSIONS DESCRIPTIONS

2
Urbanization  Vertical Assumption
extension Steel to Concrete
space demand 
connection
while limited as possible analysis and
green field
option design??

INTRODUCTION

## Reference figures: http://www.steelconstruction.info/Braced_frames 3

RC + Steel Frames  Hybrid MRF

Assumption derives
the modeling and
performance
Reference figures: http://www.steelconstruction.info/Braced_frames 4
SEMI RIGID
ACTION??

Razzaghi &
Khoshbakht
(2012)
Base Plate Connection Design – Fisher & Kloiber (2006)

AISC 341:
*) Amplified Seismic Compressive

*) Section Capacities

Tension
Bending

Conservative??
Yes, Gomez et al. (2010)

Bolt Tensile
Fracture
Rotational Stiffness Model of Base Plate (Kavinde et.
al., 2012)  Analytical Model

𝑦 = 𝑀𝑦 /𝑦

My = ¼*Fy*tp2

𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑟𝑜𝑑 + 𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 + 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 + 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒
𝜃𝑦 =
𝑁
𝑠+
2
CASE
STUDIES

SDC D

R=6
Variation Joint
Stiffness Cd = 5.0
Model 1 6EI/L
Model 2 1.5EI/L Aviram et.al.
(2010)
Model 3 0.5EI/L 8
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Frame direction X Y X Y X Y
Base plate size 530x490 560x480 530x490 560x480 530x400 560x450
(mm) x40 x40 x40 x40 x35 x40
Anchor rods 4021 4021 2454 2454 1521 1473
(mm2)
Rotational 286 426 252 369 139 206
spring
Shear spring 847 847 338 338 291 202
(MN/m)
Axial Spring 1600 1600 11300 10700 6290 2760
(MN/m)

o = 1.5
9
Axial +
Linear
Modeling
Rotation Non-Linear

## Pushover Analysis: Model

1, Model 2, Model 3 vs
Model Rigid
Code: ASCE 41-13

10
Dynamic Behaviour
Variation Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
T (s) % T (s) % T (s) %
Rigid 1.2680 70.78 1.2597 71.05 1.0757 77.84
Model 1 1.3001 67.89 1.2893 68.29 1.0907 76.16
Model 2 1.371 62.08 1.3562 62.57 1.1239 72.45
Model 3 1.4673 55.58 1.3753 61.03 1.1665 67.86

## Interstory Drift Comparison 11

Pushover Curve

dynamic

Lateral load direction X Y X Y
Yield strength, Vy (kN) 6600 y 7400 5400 Vy 6200
Y > X
Yield displacement, y (kN) 0.09 t 0.1 0.12 Ke 0.144
Effective lateral stiffness 73000 74000 45000 Vt 43000
(kN/m)
Overstrength factor 2.2 2.45 1.8 2.0 12
Target Displacement vs Ultimate Displ
Code ASCE 41-13 SNI 1726:2012
Frame direction X Y X Y
Rigid model 0.228 0.227 0.273 0.273
Model 1 0.234 0.232 0.281 0.281
Model 2 0.234 0.233 0.295 0.296
Model 3 0.237 0.229 0.309 0.296

## Roof displacement (m) Performance Level

Frame direction X Y X Y X Y X Y
Rigid model 0.2831 0.3204 0.313 0.2989 IO-LS IO-LS IO-LS IO-LS
Model 1 0.2908 0.3231 0.3348 0.3111 IO-LS IO-LS IO-LS IO-LS
Model 2 0.2912 0.3248 0.3366 0.3249 IO-LS IO-LS IO-LS IO-LS
Model 3 0.4102 0.3482 0.3441 0.3159 C-D IO-LS IO-LS IO-LS

13
Model 1

Model 3
Model 2
14
X dir

Y dir

15
Concluding Remarks
• Semi rigid model is more realistic and easier to
detail but it is rather complicated to model
• Overall structural performance with semi rigid
connection falls between IO-LS
• Variation on the connection stiffness influence
the non linear performance only  LS
• Connection stiffness of 6EI/L is reasonable for
semi rigid design
• Further study to include time history analysis is
necessary to capture stiffness deterioration
16
17