Assessment of existing steel frames: Numerical study, pseudo-dynamic testing and influence of masonry infills

Sarno, Luigi Di; Freddi, Fabio; D’Aniello, Mario; Kwon, Oh‐Sung; Wu, Jing-Ren; Gutiérrez‐Urzúa, Fernando; Landolfo, Raffaele; Park, Jamin; Palios, X.; Στρεπέλιας, Ηλίας

doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2021.106873

Cited by 27 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The influence of the infill walls was neglected in the structure modelling. Nonetheless, previous studies [56][57][58] pointed out that non-structural components may have a significant impact on the structural response to extreme loads (e.g., seismic shaking, impact, blast), but this is beyond the objectives of the current study and will be investigated in future works.…”

Section: Characteristics and Modelling Of The Structurementioning

confidence: 91%

Impact of seismic retrofitting on progressive collapse resistance of RC frame structures

Scalvenzi

Gargiulo

Freddi

et al. 2022

Engineering Failure Analysis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Characteristics and Modelling Of The Structurementioning

confidence: 91%

Impact of seismic retrofitting on progressive collapse resistance of RC frame structures

Scalvenzi

Gargiulo

Freddi

et al. 2022

Engineering Failure Analysis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, also steel structures designed before the publication of modern regulations (e.g., AISC 341-16 [17], ASCE 7-16 [18], EN 1993-1-1 [19], EN 1998-1 [20]) have been reported to suffer local and global collapses as a consequence of earthquakes [21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. Braces equipped with energy dissipation devices have proved to be effective in reducing the seismic demand for both RC [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]15] and steel structures [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39], and the most updated codes (e.g., [17,18,20]) have incorporated general guidelines for the design of dissipative braces in new constructions, with the goals of limiting the lateral displacement and dissipating most of the seismic energy in auxiliary devices, avoiding any damage to the gravity-load resistant system [33,[39][40][41][42].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic Upgrade of Steel Frame Buildings by Using Damped Braces

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Supplementary energy dissipation has proved to be an effective way of protecting structures from the disastrous effects of earthquakes and has been used in the last decades both in new and in existing constructions. In this regard, various procedures for the design of the damping system for the seismic retrofit of buildings have been formulated over the years, mainly focused on reinforced concrete (RC) constructions, which represent the largest part of the existing stock in many seismic-prone countries. The study deals with the assessment of a displacement-based design procedure for proportioning the damping system recently proposed in the literature for RC framed buildings, with the goal of establishing a good practice for the application of the procedure to steel buildings as well. The method was applied to three case-study frames, regular in plan and in elevation, which were assumed as being representative of old structures designed without consideration of seismic requirements. The retrofit was performed by using chevron braces equipped with dampers with an elastic-perfectly plastic behavior. The method aimed at defining the properties of the dampers to achieve a target performance in terms of the maximum lateral deflection for a specific level of seismic intensity. The effectiveness and reliability of the proposed procedure was eventually assessed by evaluating the seismic performance of the upgraded steel structures in static and dynamic non-linear analyses.

show abstract

“…Steel moment resisting frames (MRFs) represent a popular structural typology for seismic‐resistant buildings due to their architectural and constructional advantages (e.g., open facades, fast construction); nonetheless, several performance limitations have been identified in these structures after strong ground motions 1–3 . Although these deficiencies have been addressed in modern design codes (e.g., AISC 341‐16 4 ), a significant number of existing steel MRFs were designed according to older regulations and are often found in need of performance upgrades 5 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Steel moment resisting frames (MRFs) represent a popular structural typology for seismic-resistant buildings due to their architectural and constructional advantages (e.g., open facades, fast construction); nonetheless, several performance limitations have been identified in these structures after strong ground motions. [1][2][3] Although these deficiencies have been addressed in modern design codes (e.g., AISC 341-16 4 ), a significant number of existing steel MRFs were designed according to older regulations and are often found in need of performance upgrades. 5 Among the retrofitting options, an increasingly popular approach consists in the inclusion of Buckling Restrained Braces (BRBs) within the frames of the existing structure (e.g., [6][7][8][9][10] as these devices can provide additional strength, stiffness, and energy dissipation capacity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of the design objectives on the seismic performance of steel moment resisting frames retrofitted with buckling restrained braces

Gutiérrez‐Urzúa

Freddi

2022

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Buckling restrained braces (BRBs) represent an effective strategy for the seismic retrofit of existing steel moment resisting frames (MRFs), as they contribute to increasing the strength and ductility capacity of the structure. However, current design strategies do not provide recommendations on how the performance increase is achieved. Prioritising either the increase of strength or ductility capacity has an impact on the damage evolution and affects the overall performance of the structure. A low increase of strength typically requires larger exploitation of the ductility capacity (i.e., damage) of the existing structure, while a high increase of strength produces a significant increase of stiffness, which is often accompanied by an increase of the seismic demands that may limit the effectiveness of the retrofitting solution. The present study assesses the impact of these decisions on the overall performance of steel MRFs retrofitted with BRBs. For this purpose, two MRFs with several BRB retrofitting configurations are used as case study structures. Finite Element Models are built in OpenSees and assessed through Incremental Dynamic Analyses to account for the record‐to‐record variability. Fragility relationships are derived based on local Engineering Demand Parameters (EDPs) to describe structural and non‐structural damage, as well as path‐dependent damage indicators (i.e., residual drifts and cumulative ductility in BRBs). A comparison of the overall performance of the structures is carried out in terms of risk estimates for a high seismicity location.

show abstract

Assessment of existing steel frames: Numerical study, pseudo-dynamic testing and influence of masonry infills

Cited by 27 publications

References 44 publications

Impact of seismic retrofitting on progressive collapse resistance of RC frame structures

Impact of seismic retrofitting on progressive collapse resistance of RC frame structures

Seismic Upgrade of Steel Frame Buildings by Using Damped Braces

Influence of the design objectives on the seismic performance of steel moment resisting frames retrofitted with buckling restrained braces

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About