Analysis and modelling of the seismic behaviour of high ... - Ingegneria

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4. SEISMIC RESPONSE OF PARTIAL-STRENGTH COMPOSITE JOINTS 3500 3500 HEB 260 HEB 260 IPE 240 HEB 260 HEB 260 L 50x100x8 IPE 240 IPE 240 IPE 240 L 50x100x8 L 50x100x8 L 50x100x8 Figure 4.8. Elevation of the frames perpendicular to the direction of loading (Ispra test frame) 4.4 Seismic design of the prototype structure The seismic design of the prototype structure, carried out by the research groups of the Universities of Pisa and Trento, has been executed by using the rules included in the following standards: • prEN 1991-1-1:2001 “Actions on structures, Part 1-1: general actions, densities, self-weight, imposed loads for buildings” - Final Draft, July 2001; • prEN 1992-1:2001 “Design of concrete. Part 1: general rules and rules for buildings” –Draft n° 2, January 2001; • prEN 1993-1-1:2001 “Design of steel structures. Part 1.1: general rules” Draft n° 2, 2001; • prEN 1994-1-1:2001 “Design of composite steel and concrete structures. Part 1-1: general rules and rules for buildings” – Draft n° 3, March 2001; • prEN 1998-1:2002 “Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings” –Draft n°5, January 2002. HEB 260 HEB 260 7000 107
4. SEISMIC RESPONSE OF PARTIAL-STRENGTH COMPOSITE JOINTS University of Pisa acts as responsible of the design and execution of the 3D tests in the framework of the ECSC project 7210-PR-250 “Applicability of composite structures to sway frames”, coordinated by RWTH, Aachen, while University of Trento is the coordinator of a Ecoleader-Jrc project for access to the ELSA infrastructure entitled “Cyclic and PsD testing of a 3D steel-concrete composite frame”. Only the main aspects that are relevant to the seismic resistance of the moment resisting frames in the direction of loading are summarised herein. The uniformly distributed gravity dead load at both floors, wD, was taken equal to 4.68 kPa, including the weight of the floor slab-steel deck assembly (3.18 kPa) and an additional dead load of 1.5 kPa (mechanical equipments, finishes, etc.). The weight of the beams and columns must be added to these values: IPE300 beams = 0.42 kN/m, IPE240 beams = 0.31 kN/m, HEB260 partially encased columns = 2.33 kN/m, and HEB280 partially encased columns = 2.67 kN/m. A uniformly distributed imposed live load, wL, of 5.0 kPa was assumed at both levels. The design seismic loads at each level, Fi, were determined by using the simplified modal response spectrum analysis method: 108 F = F ⋅ i b z ⋅ m i i i ( z ⋅ m ) i i ( 4.1 ) where Fb is the seismic base shear, and zi and mi are respectively the height from the base and the masses at each level. The seismic base shear is given by: F = S ( T ) ⋅W ⋅ λ ( 4.2 ) b d 1 where Sd(T1) is the ordinate of the design spectrum at the fundamental period of vibration of the building for translational motion in the direction considered, T1, W is the total weight of the building, and is a corrective factor. The equations and the values of the soil parameter, S, and the reference periods TB, TC, and TD that are required to construct Types 1 and 2 design spectra are given for different subsoil conditions. For this project, the following key parameters were adopted: • Type 2 spectrum • Peak ground acceleration, ag = 0.40 g • Subsoil Class A (Rock site, or alike, with Vs,30 > 800 m/s) • Behaviour factor, q = 6.0 (Concept a, Structural ductility Class S dissipative composite structure, with assumed multiplier αu/α1 = 1.2)
Page 1 and 2:
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanic
Page 3 and 4:
UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI TRENTO D
Page 6:
Ai miei genitori
Page 10 and 11:
INDEX 1 INTRODUCTION...............
Page 12 and 13:
INDEX iii 4.10.3 Results of the PsD
Page 14 and 15:
1.1 Introduction 1 1 INTRODUCTION I
Page 16 and 17:
1. INTRODUCTION imposes precise con
Page 18 and 19:
1. INTRODUCTION joints whilst 2D mo
Page 20 and 21:
7 2 DUCTILITY AND SEISMIC RESPONSE
Page 22 and 23:
2. DUCTILITY AND SEISMIC RESPONSE O
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
3. SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF BOLTED END
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71: 3. SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF BOLTED END
Page 114 and 115: 4. SEISMIC RESPONSE OF PARTIAL-STRE
Page 170 and 171:
4. SEISMIC RESPONSE OF PARTIAL-STRE
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
5. SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF RC COLUMNS
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
6. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262:
show all

Analysis and modelling of the seismic behaviour of high ... - Ingegneria

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?