Seismic evaluation of a steel braced frame using NBCC and ASCE 41. Balazadeh-Minouei, Y., Koboevic, S., & Tremblay, R. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 135:110–124, 2017. Publisher: Elsevier Ltd
doi  abstract   bibtex   
The article presents the seismic evaluation and retrofit of a 10-storey steel building located in Vancouver, British Columbia, designed following the provisions of the 1980 NBCC and the CSA-S16.1-M78 steel design standard. Lateral resistance is achieved by tension-only X-bracing with back-to-back double angle members. Seismic evaluation is first performed in accordance with the recommendations of the User's Guide to NBCC 2010 using response spectrum analysis. A Tier 3 systematic evaluation according to ASCE 41-13 is then carried out using both linear and nonlinear dynamic analysis procedures. The performance objectives are set same as those implied in NBCC 2010. The ASCE 41 approach results in much less corrections to the structure. Using the mean results from 10 ground motions is also less stringent than using the maximum of three records. For this structure, nonlinear dynamic analysis permitted to identify the concentration of inelastic deformations demands on the braces along the frame height. This behaviour induced considerable bending moment demands on the columns not captured by linear dynamic analysis. Finite element analysis of the structure columns showed that columns of braced steel frames can exhibit higher ductility compared to acceptance criteria specified in ASCE 41. 2017 Elsevier Ltd
@article{balazadeh-minouei_seismic_2017,
	title = {Seismic evaluation of a steel braced frame using {NBCC} and {ASCE} 41},
	volume = {135},
	issn = {0143974X},
	doi = {10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.03.017},
	abstract = {The article presents the seismic evaluation and retrofit of a 10-storey steel building located in Vancouver, British Columbia, designed following the provisions of the 1980 NBCC and the CSA-S16.1-M78 steel design standard. Lateral resistance is achieved by tension-only X-bracing with back-to-back double angle members. Seismic evaluation is first performed in accordance with the recommendations of the User's Guide to NBCC 2010 using response spectrum analysis. A Tier 3 systematic evaluation according to ASCE 41-13 is then carried out using both linear and nonlinear dynamic analysis procedures. The performance objectives are set same as those implied in NBCC 2010. The ASCE 41 approach results in much less corrections to the structure. Using the mean results from 10 ground motions is also less stringent than using the maximum of three records. For this structure, nonlinear dynamic analysis permitted to identify the concentration of inelastic deformations demands on the braces along the frame height. This behaviour induced considerable bending moment demands on the columns not captured by linear dynamic analysis. Finite element analysis of the structure columns showed that columns of braced steel frames can exhibit higher ductility compared to acceptance criteria specified in ASCE 41.  2017 Elsevier Ltd},
	journal = {Journal of Constructional Steel Research},
	author = {Balazadeh-Minouei, Yasaman and Koboevic, Sanda and Tremblay, Robert},
	year = {2017},
	note = {Publisher: Elsevier Ltd},
	keywords = {Buckling, Columns (structural), Deformation, Dynamic response, Seismic design, Seismology, Spectrum analysis, Structural frames},
	pages = {110--124},
}

Downloads: 0