Determining the Optimal Geometry of RBS Connection for Enhancement of Seismic Behavior of Steel Moment Frames
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X20076Keywords:
Reduced Beam Section (RBS) Connection. Dogbone connection. Optimal geometry. Cyclic loading. Finite element analysis (FEA).Abstract
In a RBS connection, the stress concentration is being prevented on the location of joint via local reduction of beam section near the column and the place of plastic hinge is being transferred from connection to a section of a beam near to the column. A special ilk of RBS connection which is named dogbone connection and its beam wings are cut from a circle in an arcuate form, has displayed a desirable performance against to the seismic loads. This paper aims at obtaining the best cutting geometry of the beam wing in order to improve the performance of the connection against to the seismic loads. For this purpose in this research, we have opted a several panel zone with different dimension on the beam wing under the influence of the seismic loads in Finite Element software called Abaqus along with a cyclic loading, modeled displacement control index and the best sample of cutting dimension among from the samples that are modeled.
Downloads
References
Scott MA,Lowrence DR. 2004. The reduced beam section moment connection without continuity plates. 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada. August 1-6, paper No. 1504.
FEMA 355D, 2000. State of the art report on connection performance. Prepared by the SAC Joint Venture for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington, DC.
Chi B,Uang.M. 2002. Cyclic Response and Design Recommendations of Reduced Beam Section Moment Connections with Deep Columns. Journal of Structural Engineerig.Vol. 128, No. 4, pp. 464-473.
Zhang X,Ricles JM. 2006. Experimental Evaluation of Reduced Beam Section Connections to Deep Columns. Journal of Structural Engineering.Vol. 132,No. 3, pp. 346-357.
Shen J,Kitjasateanphun T,Srivanich W. 2000. Seismic performance of steel moment frames with reduced beam sections. Engineering Structures.Vol. 22, pp. 968-983.
Kitjasateanphun T,Shen J,Srivanich W,Hao H. 2001. Inelastic Analysis of Steel Frames with Reduced Beam Section. Structural Design of Tall Building.Vol. 10, pp. 231-244.
Jin J. El-Tawil S. 2005. Seismic performance of steel frames with reduced beam section connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research.Vol. 61, pp. 453-471.
Swati AK, Gaurang V.2014. Study of steel moment connection with and without reduced beam section.
NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief. 2009. Seismic Design of Steel Special Moment Frame – A Guide for Practicing Engineers, USA, No. 2.
NIST GCR 11-917-13. 2011. Research Plan for the Study of Seismic Behavior and Design of Deep, Slender Wide Flange Structural Steel Beam-Column Members. NIST, USA.
Abaqus, version 6.14 -1. User’s manual.
AISC. 2002. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction. Chicago, Illinois.
ANSI/AISC 341-10. 2010. Seismic provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction. USA.
ANSI/AISC 360-10. 2010. Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction. USA.
FEMA-350. 2000. Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment Frame Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington DC, USA.
Deylami A. MoslehiTabar A. 2008. Experimental study on the key issues affecting cyclic ehavior of reduced beam section moment connections. The 14thWorld Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Beijing, China. October 12-17.
ATC-24. 1992. Guidelines for Cyclic Seismic Testing of Components of Steel Structures for Buildings. Report No. ATC-24, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
