Seismic design of columns in two-story steel concentrically braced frames with bracing members intersecting columns between floors

Structures ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
pp. 3885-3896
Author(s):  
Ali Imanpour
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Design ◽  
Braced Frames ◽  
Concentrically Braced Frames ◽  
Concentrically Braced

Three-segment steel brace for seismic design of concentrically braced frames

2017 ◽  
Vol 137 ◽  
pp. 211-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Onur Seker ◽  
Bulent Akbas ◽  
Pinar Toru Seker ◽  
Mahmoud Faytarouni ◽  
Jay Shen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Design ◽  
Braced Frames ◽  
Concentrically Braced Frames ◽  
Concentrically Braced

Code provisions for seismic design for concentrically braced steel frames

1992 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 1025-1031 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. G. Redwood ◽  
A. K. Jain
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Design ◽  
Structural Engineering ◽  
Steel Frames ◽  
Braced Frames ◽  
Concentrically Braced Frames ◽  
Braced Frame ◽  
Concentrically Braced ◽  
Interstorey Drift ◽  
Available Information ◽  
Steel Braced Frame

Extensive research into the inelastic seismic response of concentrically braced frames and their components has been carried out in the last two decades. This knowledge has now been incorporated into seismic design practice in several countries, notably the U.S.A., Canada, and New Zealand. In this paper, design specifications from these three countries, which derive largely from the same body of research, are compared. The basic design philosophy for concentrically braced steel frames, loading, and member detailing are examined. It is concluded that, in general, the Canadian specifications are in conformity with the available information and have many similar features to codes of the other countries. Significant differences exist in the classification of braced frames, between interstorey drift requirements, in the treatment of dual structural systems, and to a lesser extent in member detailing requirements. Some features of Canadian codes meriting review are identified. Key words: structural engineering, earthquakes, standards, steel, braced frame, ductility, concentric bracing, dual system.

Seismic design of steel buildings: lessons from the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake

1996 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 727-756 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Tremblay ◽  
Andre Filiatrault ◽  
Michel Bruneau ◽  
Masayoshi Nakashima ◽  
Helmut G. L. Prion ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Design ◽  
Steel Structures ◽  
Structural Systems ◽  
Braced Frames ◽  
Steel Buildings ◽  
Concentrically Braced Frames ◽  
Framed Structures ◽  
Concentrically Braced ◽  
Moment Resisting ◽  
Column Bases

Past and current seismic design provisions for steel structures in Japan are presented and compared with Canadian requirements. The performance of steel framed structures during the January 17, 1995, Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake is described. Numerous failures and examples of inadequate behaviour could be observed in buildings of various ages, sizes, and heights, and braced with different structural systems. In moment resisting frames, the damage included failures of beams, columns, beam-to-column connections, and column bases. Fracture of bracing members or their connections was found in concentrically braced frames. The adequacy of the current Canadian seismic design provisions is examined in view of the observations made. Key words: earthquake, seismic design, steel structures.

A Discussion on some Key Issues for Seismic Design of Concentrically Braced Frames According to Canadian and Chinese Codes

2010 ◽  
Vol 163-167 ◽  
pp. 211-221
Author(s):  
Wen Yuan Zhang ◽  
Constantin Christopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Design ◽  
Braced Frames ◽  
Capacity Design ◽  
Concentrically Braced Frames ◽  
Main Design ◽  
Seismic Force ◽  
Concentrically Braced ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Design Requirements ◽  
Insight Into

To gain further insight into the seismic design of concentrically braced frames as defined by the Canadian and Chinese codes, a comparison of the main design requirements contained in each code is carried out in this paper. The comparison emphasizes on the differences existing in these two code provisions, and the reasons behind them. The issues that are examined include the seismic force resisting systems for braced frames, the height restrictions, the force transferred to the beams in chevron configurations, the slenderness ratios of the bracing members, the width-to-thickness ratios of the brace sections, and the influence of brace connections on the columns. Some additional issues that still remain undefined on the seismic response of these systems and some proposals for further studies are also discussed. It is concluded through this comparison that a number of modifications are still required in order to fully implement a capacity design approach of these systems in both codes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document