Proposing two new methods to decrease lateral-torsional buckling in reduced beam section connections

doi:10.1007/s11709-022-0886-1

Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

2022, Vol. 16

Issue (12) : 1581-1598 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-022-0886-1

RESEARCH ARTICLE

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

Download: PDF(12032 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

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.

Keywords RBS RBS-ST RW-RBS lateral-torsional buckling cyclic performance

Corresponding Author(s): Nasrin BAKHSHAYESH EGHBALI

Just Accepted Date: 31 October 2022 Online First Date: 22 December 2022 Issue Date: 16 January 2023

Cite this article:

Samira EBRAHIMI,Nasrin BAKHSHAYESH EGHBALI,Mohammad Mehdi AHMADI. Proposing two new methods to decrease lateral-torsional buckling in reduced beam section connections[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2022, 16(12): 1581-1598.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-022-0886-1
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2022/V16/I12/1581

Fig.1 Configuration of RBS with stiffener (RBS-ST) connection.

Fig.2 Configuration of RBS with reduced web (RW-RBS) connection.

Tab.1 T-subassemblies used in the numerical study

Fig.3 Geometrical details of models.

a	b	c
$(0.5 − 0.75) b b$	$(0.65 − 0.85) d b$	$(0.1 − 0.25) b b$

Tab.2 Parameters of the radius cut profile in RBS connections recommended by AISC-358 [33]

Fig.4 Typical characteristics of RBS connections with radius cut profile.

Tab.3 Considered values for the parameters of a, b, c, and

t s t

in five models with RBS and RBS-ST connections

$m o d e l$ $n a m e$	$a$ $(m m)$	$b$ $(m m)$	$V e x p$ $(k N)$	$(d b − d)$ $(m m)$	$d$ $(m m)$	$Z R B S$ $(c m 3)$	$Z R − W e b$ $(c m 3)$	$Z R − F l a n g e$ $(c m 3)$	$e$ $(m m)$
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 Considered values for the parameters of

a

b

V e x p

(d b − d)

d

Z R B S

Z R − W e b

Z R − F l a n g e

, and

e

in five models with RW-RBS connection

Tab.5 Loading protocol in accordance with AISC 341-16 [34]

Fig.5 Boundary conditions considered for the models.

Fig.6 Modeling specimen tested by Saneei Nia et al. [36] in ABAQUS.

Fig.7 Comparison between the hysteresis response of the test results and that of the finite element model.

Fig.8 Comparison between: (a) the deformed shape of specimen tested by Saneei Nia et al. [36]; (b) that of the modeled specimen in ABAQUS.

Fig.9 Comparison between the hysteresis response of the test results and that of the finite element model.

Fig.10 Comparison between: (a) the deformed shape of specimen tested by Davarpanah et al. [24]; (b) that of the modeled specimen in ABAQUS.

Fig.11 Comparison between the hysteresis response of models with RBS connection and that of the RBS-ST/ RW-RBS connection models: (a) model 1; (b) model 2; (c) model 3; (d) model 4; (e) model 5.

Tab.6 Comparing the cumulative energy dissipation of models

Fig.12 Comparison between the beam lateral deformation of models with RBS connection and that of models with RBS-ST/ RW-RBS connections: (a) model 1-6% drift; (b) model 2-6% drift; (c) model 3-6% drift; (d) model 4-6% drift; (e) model 5-6% drift.

Fig.13 Comparison of equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ) between RBS, RBS-ST, and RW-RBS connections at 6% drift: (a) model 1–6% drift; (b) model 2–6% drift; (c) model 3–6% drift; (d) model 4–6% drift; (e) model 5–6% drift.

Fig.14 Maximum PEEQ index versus drifts in the models: (a) model 1; (b) model 2; (c) model 3; (d) model 4; (e) model 5.

$a$	$b$	$h$
$(0.5 − 0.75) b b$	$(0.65 − 0.85) d b$	$0.4 d b$

Tab.7 Parameters of E-RWS connection recommended by Davarpanah et al. [24]

Fig.15 Typical characteristics of E-RWS connection proposed by Davarpanah et al. [24].

Tab.8 Considered values for the parameters of a, b, and h in models with E-RWS connection

Fig.16 Comparison between behavior and hysteresis curve of the models with E-RWS connection and those of the models with RW-RBS connection: (a) model 1; (b) model 4; (c) model 5.

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

[1]	Yasser SHARIFI,Sajjad TOHIDI. Lateral-torsional buckling capacity assessment of web opening steel girders by artificial neural networks – elastic investigation[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2014, 8(2): 167-177.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed