Improved Canadian seismic provisions for steel braced frames in heavy industrial structures. Brunet, F., Tremblay, R., Richard, J., & Lasby, M. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 153:638 - 653, 2019. Bi-directional;Braced frame;Column buckling;Industrial steel;Structural irregularity;
Improved Canadian seismic provisions for steel braced frames in heavy industrial structures [link]Paper  abstract   bibtex   
The seismic provisions of the Canadian CSA S16-14 standard for steel structures for heavy industrial steel structures are reviewed and applied for a 65.4 m tall concentrically braced frames (CBFs) for an industrial application in Vancouver, BC. Two approaches are examined: a capacity design method in accordance with CSA S16 Annex M and a simpler, non-capacity design approach for the structures of the Conventional Construction (Type CC) category. Nonlinear response history analyses are performed to examine and compare the seismic response of the structures. Modifications are proposed to mobilize higher brace inelastic response, mitigate storey drift concentrations, and ensure that the columns can safely resist the seismic induced axial and flexural demands. The modified provisions are validated for additional structures having heights varying from 43 to 80 m and two different vertical distribution of the seismic weights. The robustness of the structures against excessive storey drifts and column buckling limit states is verified through incremental dynamic analysis. Both Annex M and Type CC design approaches, as modified in this study, represent two practical options to achieve cost-effective designs resulting in satisfactory seismic response. Three-dimensional nonlinear response history analysis is used to compare the 100%–100% and 100%–30% combination rules to predict the axial load demand on columns part of two orthogonal CBFs. For the structure studied, the results showed that the latter would give more realistic force estimates.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd
@article{20184706131164 ,
language = {English},
copyright = {Compilation and indexing terms, Copyright 2023 Elsevier Inc.},
copyright = {Compendex},
title = {Improved Canadian seismic provisions for steel braced frames in heavy industrial structures},
journal = {Journal of Constructional Steel Research},
author = {Brunet, Frederic and Tremblay, Robert and Richard, Julien and Lasby, Mark},
volume = {153},
year = {2019},
pages = {638 - 653},
issn = {0143974X},
abstract = {The seismic provisions of the Canadian CSA S16-14 standard for steel structures for heavy industrial steel structures are reviewed and applied for a 65.4 m tall concentrically braced frames (CBFs) for an industrial application in Vancouver, BC. Two approaches are examined: a capacity design method in accordance with CSA S16 Annex M and a simpler, non-capacity design approach for the structures of the Conventional Construction (Type CC) category. Nonlinear response history analyses are performed to examine and compare the seismic response of the structures. Modifications are proposed to mobilize higher brace inelastic response, mitigate storey drift concentrations, and ensure that the columns can safely resist the seismic induced axial and flexural demands. The modified provisions are validated for additional structures having heights varying from 43 to 80 m and two different vertical distribution of the seismic weights. The robustness of the structures against excessive storey drifts and column buckling limit states is verified through incremental dynamic analysis. Both Annex M and Type CC design approaches, as modified in this study, represent two practical options to achieve cost-effective designs resulting in satisfactory seismic response. Three-dimensional nonlinear response history analysis is used to compare the 100%&ndash;100% and 100%&ndash;30% combination rules to predict the axial load demand on columns part of two orthogonal CBFs. For the structure studied, the results showed that the latter would give more realistic force estimates.<br/> &copy; 2018 Elsevier Ltd},
key = {Seismic response},
keywords = {Steel structures;Buckling;Cost effectiveness;Structural frames;Seismic design;},
note = {Bi-directional;Braced frame;Column buckling;Industrial steel;Structural irregularity;},
URL = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.11.008},
}

Downloads: 0