The effect of number and position of braced frames on column behavior of the dual steel structural system (MRF and EBF) (With a view on amplified seismic load)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X20858Abstract
In seismic design of structures, determination of number and position of braced frames, considering the architectural scheme of projects, is usually confronted by obstacles. Due to this fact, in some cases, selecting the best location and number of braced bays has led to mistakes in determination of their adjacent members (columns) design loads. One of the seismic design requirements of lateral resisting system is to control the columns adjacent to braced bays for load combinations of amplified seismic load, which is a function of over-strength factor of the structure. This research aims to present and introduce the best structural model of number and position of braced frames in a structural system, such as steel moment resisting frame and eccentric braces dual system; because in 3rd revision of Iranian 2800 standard of seismic provision, there are statements and criteria provided only for capacity of moment frame, not for braces. Though the amplified seismic load function is controlled in models which columns are connected to braces in 2 directions, and seismic loads are applied in those 2 directions, number of damage hinges (Exceeding CP) is significantly increased in comparison to the models with straggly braces. As the increase in axial force of these columns leads to decrease in their moment capacity (despite controlling the amplified seismic load provision), columns in dual systems that resist flexure, would be damaged and exceed the collapse threshold much sooner than other columns. This important fact is not presented in Iranian or even American codes and provisions.Downloads
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.
