Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

ISSN 2095-2430

ISSN 2095-2449(Online)

CN 10-1023/X

邮发代号 80-968

2019 Impact Factor: 1.68

Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering  2022, Vol. 16 Issue (12): 1581-1598   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-022-0886-1
  本期目录
Proposing two new methods to decrease lateral-torsional buckling in reduced beam section connections
Samira EBRAHIMI1, Nasrin BAKHSHAYESH EGHBALI2(), Mohammad Mehdi AHMADI2
1. School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran 1417935840, Iran
2. Department of Civil Engineering, Ilam University, Ilam 69391-77111, Iran
 全文: PDF(12032 KB)   HTML
Abstract

Reduced web section (RWS) connections can prevent lateral-torsional buckling and web local buckling experienced by reduced beam section (RBS) connections. In RWS connections, removing a large portion of web can result in shear demand intolerance induced to plastic hinge region. The present study aims to resolve the problems of RBS and RWS connections by proposing two new connections: (1) RBS with stiffener (RBS-ST) and (2) RBS with reduced web (RW-RBS) connections. In the first connection (RBS-ST), a series of stiffeners is connected to the beam in the reduced flange region, while the second connection (RW-RBS) considers both a reduction in flanges and a reduction in web. Five beam-to-column joints with three different connections, including RBS, RBS-ST, and RW-RBS connections were considered and simulated in ABAQUS. According to the results, RBS-ST and RW-RBS connections can decrease or even eliminate lateral-torsional buckling and web local buckling in RBS connection. It is important to note that RW-RBS connection is more effective in long beams with smaller shear demands in the plastic hinge region. Moreover, results showed that RBS and RW-RBS connections experienced strength degradation at 4% to 5% drift, while no strength degradation was observed in RBS-ST connection until 8% drift.

Key wordsRBS    RBS-ST    RW-RBS    lateral-torsional buckling    cyclic performance
收稿日期: 2022-02-13      出版日期: 2023-01-16
Corresponding Author(s): Nasrin BAKHSHAYESH EGHBALI   
 引用本文:   
. [J]. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2022, 16(12): 1581-1598.
Samira EBRAHIMI, Nasrin BAKHSHAYESH EGHBALI, Mohammad Mehdi AHMADI. Proposing two new methods to decrease lateral-torsional buckling in reduced beam section connections. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2022, 16(12): 1581-1598.
 链接本文:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/CN/10.1007/s11709-022-0886-1
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/CN/Y2022/V16/I12/1581
Fig.1  
Fig.2  
model name beam section column section Hbeam (mm) Hcolumn (mm)
model 1 IPE 270 IPB 180 1500 3000
model 2 IPE 360 IPB 240 1500 3000
model 3 IPE 360 IPB 220 3000 3000
model 4 IPE 450 IPB 300 1500 3000
model 5 IPE 450 IPB 280 3000 3000
Tab.1  
Fig.3  
a b c
(0.50.75) bb (0.650.85) db (0.10.25) bb
Tab.2  
Fig.4  
model name connection type a (mm) b (mm) c (mm) tst (mm)
model 1 RBS and RBS-ST 101.25 216 20 10
model 2 RBS and RBS-ST 127.5 288 25.5 10
model 3 RBS and RBS-ST 127.5 288 25.5 10
model 4 RBS and RBS-ST 142.5 360 30 10
model 5 RBS and RBS-ST 142.5 360 30 10
Tab.3  
m ode l n ame a (m m) b (m m) Ve xp (k N) (d b d) ( mm) d (m m) ZR BS (cm3) ZRW eb (cm3) ZRF lan ge (cm3) e (m m)
model 1 101.25 216 113.2 132 110 323 82.8 240.2 15
model 2 127.5 288 258.4 249 84 679 210 469 24
model 3 127.5 288 109.4 105 228 679 120 559 14
model 4 142.5 360 462.5 380 40 1118 412 706 29
model 5 142.5 360 187 154 266 1118 250 868
Tab.4  
number of cycles drift (%)
6 0.375
6 0.5
6 0.75
4 1
2 1.5
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
2 7
2 8
Tab.5  
Fig.5  
Fig.6  
Fig.7  
Fig.8  
Fig.9  
Fig.10  
Fig.11  
model name dissipated energy (kN·m) variation between RBS and RBS-ST (%) variation between RBS and RW-RBS (%)
RBS RBS-ST RW-RBS
model 1 131.9 154.5 132.7 17 1
model 2 290.3 355.8 275.6 23 −5
model 3 271.1 275.3 233 2 −14
model 4 478.7 636.6 439 33 −8
model 5 417.1 478 411.9 15 −1
Tab.6  
Fig.12  
Fig.13  
Fig.14  
a b h
(0.50.75)bb (0.650.85)db 0.4 db
Tab.7  
Fig.15  
model name connection type a (mm) b (mm) h (mm)
model 1 E-RWS 101.25 216 108
model 4 E-RWS 142.5 360 180
model 5 E-RWS 142.5 360 180
Tab.8  
Fig.16  
1 D K Miller. Lessons learned from the Northridge earthquake. Engineering Structures, 1998, 20(4−6): 249−260
2 M NakashimaK InoueM Tada. Classification of damage to steel buildings observed in the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake. Engineering Structures, 1998, 20(4−6): 271−281
3 Q S K Yu, C M Uang, J Gross. Seismic rehabilitation design of steel moment connection with welded haunch. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2000, 126(1): 69–78
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:1(69
4 C C Chou, K C Tsai, Y Y Wang, C K Jao. Seismic rehabilitation performance of steel side plate moment connections. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2010, 39(1): 23–44
5 M Ghobadi, M Ghassemieh, A Mazroi, A Abolmaali. Seismic performance of ductile welded connections using T-stiffener. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2009, 65(4): 766–775
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2008.05.007
6 C H Kang, Y J Kim, K J Shin, Y S Oh. Experimental investigation of composite moment connections with external stiffeners. Advances in Structural Engineering, 2013, 16(10): 1683–1700
https://doi.org/10.1260/1369-4332.16.10.1683
7 E P Popov, T S Yang, S P Chang. Design of steel MRF connections before and after 1994 Northridge earthquake. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1998, 20: 1030–1038
8 A Plumier. Behavior of connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 1994, 29(1−3): 95–119
9 C J CarterN R Iwankiw. Improved ductility in seismic steel moment frames with dogbone connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 1998, 46(1–3): 448
10 M D Engelhardt, T Winneberger, A J Zekany, T J Potyraj. The dogbone connection: Part II. Modern Steel Construction, 1996, 36(8): 46–55
11 A Deylami, A Moslehi Tabar. Promotion of cyclic behavior of reduced beam section connections restraining beam web to local buckling. Thin-walled Structures, 2013, 73: 112–120
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2013.07.013
12 M Tahamouli Roudsari, K H Jamshidi, M Mohebi Zangeneh. Experimental and numerical investigation of IPE reduced beam sections with diagonal web stiffeners. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2018, 22(4): 533–552
13 X Zhang, J M Ricles. Experimental evaluation of reduced beam section connections to deep columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2006, 132(3): 346–357
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:3(346
14 B Chi, C M Uang. Cyclic response and design recommendations of reduced beam section moment connections with deep columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2002, 128(4): 464–473
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4(464
15 F X Li, L Kanao, J Li, K Morisako. Local buckling of RBS beams subjected to cyclic loading. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2009, 135(12): 1491–1498
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000073
16 M A Morshedi, K M Dolatshahi, S Maleki. Double reduced beam section connection. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2017, 138: 283–297
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.07.013
17 K D Tsavdaridis, T Papadopoulos. A FE parametric study of RWS beam-to-column bolted connections with cellular beams. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2016, 116: 92–113
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.08.046
18 A A Hedayat, M Celikag. Post-Northridge connection with modified beam end configuration to enhance strength and ductility. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2009, 65(7): 1413–1430
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.03.007
19 M Davarpanah, H Ronagh, P Memarzadeh, F Behnamfar. Cyclic behaviour of elliptical-shaped reduced web section connection. Structures, 2020, 24: 955–973
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.02.016
20 A Imanpour, S Torabian, S R Mirghaderi. Seismic design of the double-cell accordion-web reduced beam section connection. Engineering Structures, 2019, 191: 23–38
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.04.023
21 T A Horton, I Hajirasouliha, B Davison, Z Ozdemir. More efficient design of reduced beam sections (RBS) for maximum seismic performance. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2021, 183: 106728
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2021.106728
22 Q Yang, B Li, N Yang. Aseismic behaviors of steel moment resisting frames with opening in beam web. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2009, 65(6): 1323–1336
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.01.007
23 S Momenzadeh, M T Kazemi, M H Asl. Seismic performance of reduced web section moment connections. International Journal of Steel Structures, 2017, 17(2): 413–425
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-017-6004-x
24 M Davarpanah, H Ronagh, P Memarzadeh, F Behnamfar. Cyclic behavior of welded elliptical-shaped RWS moment frame. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2020, 175: 106319
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.106319
25 H Nazaralizadeh, H Ronagh, P Memarzadeh, F Behnamfar. Cyclic performance of bolted end-plate RWS connection with vertical-slits. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2020, 173: 106236
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.106236
26 S R Mirghaderi, S Torabian, A Imanpour. Seismic performance of the Accordion Web RBS connection. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2010, 66(2): 277–288
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.09.007
27 A Saleh, S M Zahrai, S R Mirghaderi. Experimental study on innovative tubular web RBS connections in steel MRFs with typical shallow beams. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 2016, 57(5): 785–808
https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2016.57.5.785
28 S M Zahrai, S R Mirghaderi, A Saleh. Increasing plastic hinge length using two pipes in a proposed web reduced beam section, an experimental and numerical study. Steel and Composite Structures, 2017, 23(4): 421–433
https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2017.23.4.421
29 A Mansouri, M R Shakiba, E Fereshtehpour. Two novel corrugated web reduced beam section connections for steel moment frames. Journal of Building Engineering, 2021, 43: 103187
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103187
30 M Vahedi, R Ardestani, S M Zahrai. Sensitivity analysis of tubular-web reduced beam section connections under cyclic loading. International Journal of Steel Structures, 2021, 21(1): 100–117
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-020-00418-1
31 C H Lee, S W Jeon, J H Kim, C M Uang. Effects of panel zone strength and beam web connection method on seismic performance of reduced beam section steel moment connections. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2005, 131(12): 1854–1865
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:12(1854
32 A Deylami, A Moslehi Tabar. Promotion of cyclic behavior of reduced beam section connections restraining beam web to local buckling. Thin-walled Structures, 2013, 73: 112–120
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2013.07.013
33 358-05 ANSI/AISC. Prequalified Connections for Special and Intermediate Steel Moment Frames for Seismic Applications. Chicago: AISC, 2016
34 AISC. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, AISC/ANSI 341-16, American Institute of Steel Construction. Chicago: AISC, 2016
35 User’s Manual ABAQUS/PRE:. Logan: Hibbit, Karlsson and Sorensen Inc., 1997
36 Z Saneei Nia, M Ghassemieh, A Mazroi. WUF-W connection performance to box column subjected to uniaxial and biaxial loading. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2013, 88: 90–108
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2013.04.008
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed