Effect of Building Configuration

DESIGN PROCEDURES
Rita Peres, Rita Bento, Miguel Castro
Manuscript prepared April, 2011
1
Table of contents
DESIGN PROCEDURES ............................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 3
DESIGN OF THE STUDIED STRUCTURES ............................................................................. 4
1 STRUCTURES CONFIGURATION (1 storey structures)................................................... 4
1.1 GROUP 1 - Structures with stable hysteretic behavior (MRF) ..................................... 4
1.2 GROUP 2 - Structures with unstable hysteretic behavior (CBF) .................................. 5
2 MATERIALS ........................................................................................................................ 5
3 LOADS ................................................................................................................................. 6
3.1 Static Loads ................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Seismic Loads ............................................................................................................... 6
4 LOAD COMBINATIONS .................................................................................................... 7
5 STATIC DESIGN ................................................................................................................. 7
6 SEISMIC DESIGN ............................................................................................................. 11
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 15
APPENDIX- SUMMARY OF THE DESIGN PROCEDURES ................................................. 16
2
INTRODUCTION
In the scope of the research project POCI/ECM/59306/2004, a group of steel structures is

being selected and designed in order to be assessed, in terms of seismic performance, by
the non linear static procedures.
The aim of the research is to extend the use of these procedures to 3D irregular structures,
therefore the evaluation of the torsional phenomena, and its effects in seismic response are
crucial for a complete understanding of the study results. For this reason the following
groups of 1 storey structures, with different torsional characteristics and different
hysteretic behaviors, was selected:
GROUP 1- Steel structures with stable hysteretic behavior (the seismic lateral resisting
systems selected were Moment Resisting Frames)
1. Laterally unrestrained regular structures ( CM=CR=CV);

2. Laterally unrestrained irregular structures (different locations for CM,CR and CV);
3. Laterally restrained regular structures (CM=CR=CV);
4. Laterally restrained irregular structures (different locations for CM, CR and CV).
GROUP 2- Steel structures with unstable hysteretic behavior (the seismic lateral resisting
systems selected were Concentric Braces Frames)
5. Laterally unrestrained regular structures ( CM=CR=CV);

6. Laterally unrestrained irregular structures (different locations for CM,CR and CV);
7. Laterally restrained regular structures (CM=CR=CV);
8. Laterally restrained irregular structures (different locations for CM, CR and CV).
In the present report, a description of the structures configuration and the design
procedures is presented. The static design procedure followed the EC3 [CEN, 2005]
recommendations and the seismic design followed the IFBD procedure [Villani, 2009] which
consists of a more rational sequence of the design steps prescribed by EC8 [CEN, 2004] and a
more realist selection of the structure’s behaviour factor.
3
DESIGN OF THE STUDIED STRUCTURES
1 STRUCTURES CONFIGURATION (1 storey structures)
1.1 GROUP 1 - Structures with stable hysteretic behavior (MRF)
6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
2.00 2.00 2.00
7.00 7.00
4.00 4.00
7.00 7.00
Figure 1- Laterally unrestrained regular& irregular structures (structures 1 & 2)
6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
2.00 2.00 2.00
7.00 7.00
4.00 4.00
7.00 7.00
Figure 2- Laterally restrained regular & irregular structures (structures 3&4)
4
1.2 GROUP 2 - Structures with unstable hysteretic behavior (CBF)
6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
7.00 7.00
FRAME 1 FRAME 3 IPE330
FRAME 1
FRAME 2
FRAME 3
FRAME2
4.00 4.00
FRAME4 IPE330
7.00 7.00
Figure 3- Laterally unrestrained regular & irregular structures (structure 5 & 6)
6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
FRAME 3 FRAME 4
7.00 7.00
FRAME 1
FRAME 2
FRAME 2
FRAME 3
FRAME 1
4.00 4.00
7.00 7.00
FRAME 4 FRAME 5
Figure.4- Laterally restrained regular & irregular structure (structure 7&8)
2 MATERIALS
Table.1– Materials properties
Materials properties
Modulus of elasticity, E 210 GPa
Yield strength, fy 275 MPa
Ultimate strength,fu 430 MPa
Poisson coefficient, υ 0,3
5
3 LOADS
3.1 Static Loads

Table.1– Static unit loads
Dead Loads- G Live Loads- Q

2
[kN/m ] [kN/m2]
Slab self weight 2,93 2,00
Finishings 1,00
Note: The wind load is not considered in the design
3.2 Seismic Loads

As prescribed in Part1 of Eurocode 8 “the ground motion at given point on the surface is
represented by an elastic ground acceleration response spectrum”,
It was assumed a Type 1 response spectra and soil type B: S =1,2; TB =0,15; TC =0,50 and
TD =2,0.
The design response spectrum, S d (T ) , is obtained from the elastic response spectrum by
dividing it by the behaviour factor (q).
Figure.1- Elastic Response Spectra (Type 1; Soil type B; PGA=0,30g)
6
4 LOAD COMBINATIONS
The design load combinations considered are related with the ultimate and serviceability limit
states, as recommended by ECO [CEN, 2002]:
Ultimate limit state combinations (ULS)
- Persistent and transient design situation

F   G  Gk   Q  Qk (4.1)
with  G =1,35 and  Q =1,5.
- Seismic combination
Fd  Gk   E E Ek   2  Qk (4.2)
with  I =1,00 and  2 =1,0 or  2 =0,0 ( if the last floor is the roof).
Serviceability limit state combination (SLS)

Fd  Gk  Qk (4.3)
5 STATIC DESIGN
The static design procedure followed the next sequence of steps:
1. Selection of initial columns and beams sections
The required columns and beams sections are selected based on a preliminary analysis
of the vertical loading.
2. Structural analysis
The second order effects, due to lateral displacement as result of the vertical loading, do
not need to be incorporated in the structural analysis if  cr  10 . However, if
 cr  3.0 a first order analysis can also be performed through the amplification of the
horizontal loading.
The amplification factor is that given by:
1
(5.1)
1
1
 cr
The parameter  cr can be computed through the expression:
7
 H   h  
 cr   Ed    
(5.2)
 VEd    H , Ed 
where
H Ed is the reaction in the base of the storey to the horizontal loads applied to the
structure;
VEd is the total vertical load applied to the structure;
 H , Ed is the horizontal displacement due to the horizontal loads applied to the structure;
h is the storey height.
The equivalent horizontal loads due to the effect of imperfections, H Ed , are given as
the product of the vertical loads, V Ed applied to the structure and the equivalent
geometric imperfection,  :
H Ed    VEd . (5.3)
The equivalent geometric imperfection considered in the global analysis, that leads to
lateral displacements and consequently to second order effects, was calculated using the
following expression, given in Eurocode 3:
  0   h   m (5.4)
where
 0  1 / 200
h  2 / h is the reduction coefficient associated with the storey
height 2 / 3   h  1.0
 1
 h  0.50  1   is reduction coefficient associated to the number of columns in
 m
each storey. The parameter m represents the number of columns in each storey that are
subjected to an axial force equal or higher than 50% of mean value for column in the
vertical plan considered.
The member imperfections are accounted for in the individual stability member checks,
as prescribed in Section 6.3 of EC3.
8
3. ULS checks
After computing the real actions applied to the structure, the selected member sections
have to satisfy the ULS strength requirements in terms of cross section and member
stability (Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of EC3, respectively).
Strength requirements
N Ed
 1.0 (5.5)
N c , Rd
VEd
 1.0 (5.6)
Vc , Rd
M Ed
 1.0 (5.7)
M c , Rd
M Ed  M N , Rd (5.8)
where N Ed , M Ed and V Ed are the design axial force, bending moment and shear,
respectively;
N c , Rd , M c , Rd , Vc , Rd and M N , Rd are the design resistances computed as following
(Sections 6.2.4, 6.2.5,6.2.5 and 6.2.8, respectively):
A fy
N c , Rd  for class 1,2 and 3 cross-sections
M0
Av  f y / 3
Vc , Rd  V pl, Rd 
 M0
w pl  f y
M c , Rd  M pl, Rd  for class 1 and 2 sections
 M0
M N , y , Rd  M pl, y , Rd  (1  n) /(1  0.5  a) ; M N , y , Rd  M pl, y , Rd 
n  a : M N , z , Rd  M pl, z , Rd
n  a : M N , z , Rd  M pl, z , Rd
 
With n  N Ed / N pl, Rd ; a  A  2  b  t f / A and a  0.50 ;
 M 0 =1,0
Stability requirements
Elements subjected to compression should satisfy the following expression:
N Ed
 1.0 (5.9)
N b , Rd
9
where
N Ed and N b, Rd are the design axial load and design bucking resistance, respectively,
given by
  A fy
N b, Rd  (for class 1,2 and 3 cross-sections)
 M1

1
 
, (   1.0)   0.5 1     0.2    2

   2 2
   / 1
  le / i
E
1   
fy
 M 1 =1,0
Elements subjected to bending moment :

M Ed
 1.0 (5.10)
M b , Rd
where M Ed and M b , Rd are the design bending moment and the bucking bending
moment resistance, respectively. The buckling resistance for cross-sections class 1 and
 LT  W pl  f y
2 can be computed through the expression M b, Rd  .
 M1
It was assumed that appropriated measures were adopted in order to avoid lateral
torsional buckling of structural elements, therefore both beams and columns were
considered laterally restrained (  LT  1.0) .
Members of class 1 and 2 cross-sections subjected to combined bending and axial

compression should satisfy:
N Ed M y , Ed M z , Ed
 k yy   k yz  1.0 ((5.11)
 y  N Rk  LT  M y , Rk M z , Rk
 M1  M1  M1
N Ed M y , Ed M z , Ed
 k yz   k zz  1.0 (5.12)
 z  N Rk  LT  M y , Rk M z , Rk
 M1  M1  M1
where
10
N Ed , M y , Ed ,and M z , Ed are the design axial load and bending moments;
N Rk , M y , Rk ,and M z , Rk are the design axial load and bending moments resistences;
 y ,  z are the reduction factors due to buckling in compression;
 LT is the reduction factor due to lateral buckling;

k yy , k yz , k zz , k zy are the interaction factors, computed as indicated in Annex B.
4. SLS checks
The SLS’s vertical deformation consists of the following check as prescribed in Section
3.4 of EC:
L
 max  (5.13)
250
Where  mac is total vertical deflection and L is the beam span.
6 SEISMIC DESIGN
The seismic design procedure followed the IFBD procedure (Improved Forced Based Design)
proposed by Villani [2009].
The sequence of design steps of the IFBD procedure is the following:
1. Selection of the lateral resisting system and static design for gravity loads;
6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
IPE270 IPE270 IPE270 IPE270 IPE270

IPE270
IPE270
IPE270
IPE270
IPE270
IPE270
IPE270
IPE270
IPE270
IPE270
IPE270
IPE270
7.00
lateral resisting
IPE330 IPE330
FRAME 5
IPE330 IPE330
systems
FRAME 1
FRAME 2
FRAME 3
FRAME 1
IPE160
IPE160
IPE160
IPE160
IPE160
IPE160
IPE160
IPE160
IPE160
IPE160
4.00
IPE330 IPE330 IPE330 IPE330

FRAME 6
IPE270
IPE270
IPE270
IPE270
IPE270
IPE270
IPE270
IPE270
IPE270
IPE270
IPE270
IPE270
7.00
lateral resisting
systems
Figure 1- Plan view of the torsionally unrestrained and regular structure
2. Determination of the seismic elastic forces based on the structure’s fundamental

period:
11
Ve    m  S e (T1 ) (6.1)
where  is the correction factor (0,85), m is the mass of the system, T1 is the
fundamental period of vibration of the system and Se (T1 ) is the ordinate of the elastic
response spectrum;
3. Serviceability Limit States (SLS) interstorey drift checks and eventual increase of
the structural stiffness. For buildings having ductile structural elements:
d r    0,01h (6.2)
Where d r is the inter-storey drift, h is the storey drift and  is the reduction factor that
takes into account the lower return period of the seismic action associated with the
damage limitation requirement (it is recommended 0,5 for buildings of classes I and II).
4. Evaluation of the behaviour factor, ‘q’.

The behaviour factor can be calculated if the the design force ( Vd ) is intentionally set to
be equal to the first yield base shear ( V1 y ):
Vel Vel V1 y Vel

q    (6.3)
Vd V1 y Vd V1 y
where
Vel is the elastic seismic force obtained from the elastic response spectrum;
V y is lateral capacity of the structure;
V1 y is lateral force reached at the formation of the first plastic hinge in the structure;
Vd is lateral force considered in the design process;
The first plastic hinge occurs when the bending moment due to seismic action, plus the
bending moment due to the gravity loads become equal to the plastic moment of the
element under consideration:
M pl, Rd    M ( E Ek )  M (G   2  Qk ) (6.4)
where :
M pl, Rd is the plastic moment;
M ( EEk ) is the moment due to a unit seismic action;
 is the load factor;
12
M (G  2  Qk ) is the moment due to the gravity loads.
5. Determination of the seismic design forces followed by elastic structural analysis

(in order to get moment, internal forces and displacements):
Vd    m  S d (T1 ) (6.5)
where  is the correction factor (0,85), m is the mass of the system, T1 is the
fundamental period of vibration of the system and S d (T1 ) is the ordinate of the design
response spectrum;
6. P-∆ checks and possible amplification of the seismic design base shear:
Ptot  d r
  0.10 (6.6)
Vtot  h
If 0.10    0.20 the second order effects may be approximately taken into account
by multiplying the relevant seismic actions effects by the factor 1 /(1   ) .
7. Ultimate Limit State (ULS) checks for the final set of seismic forces.
Moment Resisting Frames (Group 1): to check ULS, all members should satisfy
equations (5.5) to (5.12) .
Concentric Braced Frames (Group 2)

Braces
As recommend by EC8 , braces should satisfy the following of resistance and have their
non-dimensional slenderness limited:
N Ed  N pl, Rd (6.7)
1.3    2.0 (6.8)
where
N Ed is the design axial force;
N pl, Rd is the design resistance computed as indicated by EC3;~
 is the non-dimensional slenderness.
13
Beams & Columns
The beams and columns should be checked to remain elastic in order to ensure that
dissipative behavior is located in the braces. According to Section 6.7.4 of EC8 the
design forces are obtained using the following combination:
Ed  Ed ,Gk 0,3Qk  1.1   ov    Ed , E (6.9)
where
 ov is the overstrength factor which is equal to 1.25;
 N pl,rd ,i 
 is given by   min  .
 N 
 Ed ,i 
After computing the beams and columns design forces, as indicated above, equations
(5.5) to (5.12) have to be satisfied.
14
REFERENCES
CEN [2002] EN1990, Eurocode 0: Basis of structural design, European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
CEN [2004] EN1998-1-3, Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance- Part 1:
general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
CEN [2005] EN1998-1-1, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1: general rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels,
Belgium.
15
APPENDIX- SUMMARY OF THE DESIGN PROCEDURES
16
STRUCTURE 1- SEISMIC DESIGN (3D)
1 Selection of the lateral resisting system
IPE300
IPE300
FRAME 5
FRAME 1
FRAME 2
FRAME 3
FRAME 1
IPE200
IPE200
FRAME 6
IPE300
IPE300
Figure1.1- Torsionally restrained regular structure (structure 1)
Table 1.1– Sections obtained from Static Design
COLUMNS BEAMS
EXTERNAL INTERNAL EXTERNAL INTERNAL
FRAME 1&4 HEB140 HEB140 IPE 220 IPE 160
FRAME 5&6 HEB180 IPE270
Table 1.2– Adopted Sections (Seismic Design)
COLUMNS BEAMS
2 Consideration of accidental eccentricities
2.1– Accidental eccentricities
ACCIDENTAL ECCENTRICITIES (ea)

Lx(m) 30 Ly(m) 18
eax (m) (  ) 1.5 eay (m) (  )0.9
Table 2.2–Center of Mass (CM), Center of Stiffness (CR) and Accidental Eccentricities (ea)
1
CASE 1 CASE 3 CASE 3 CASE 4
Coordinates(m) CM CR (w/out ea) ea ea ea ea
0.00 -1.50 -1.50 1.50 1.50
xi 0.00
yi 0.00 0.00 -0.9 0.9 -0.9 0.9
3 Modal analysis to determine periods of vibration in x and y directions and the elastic
seismic forces
Table 3.1– Elastic Seismic Forces (with and without accidental eccentricities)
Without Accidental eccentricities With Accidental eccentricity(Case 1)
Direction yy Direction xx Direction yy Direction xx

0.54
T(s) 0.68 0.55 0.68
8.175
Se(m/s2) 6.492 8.026 6.492
206.51 206.51
M (ton) 206.51 206.51
1688.18
Ve(kN) 1340.61 1657.49 1340.61
4 Serviceability Limit State checks (drift limits are obtained from the spectral analysis
considering q=1.0)
Table 4.1– SLS checks (CASE 1)
SLS chekcs h (m) dr (m) dr.ν Limit(m)

Direction yy 4.5 0.076 0.038 0.045
Direction xx 4.5 0.082 0.041 0.045
5 Evaluation of the behaviour factor. ‘q’, followed by spectral analysis (in order to get
moment. internal forces and displacements)
Table 5.1– Estimation of the structure behavior factors in x and y directions (CASE 1)
FRAME 1 FRAME 2 FRAME 3 FRAME 4 FRAME 5 FRAME 6

T(s) 0.55 0.68
2
Se(m/s ) 8.026 6.492
e
V (kN) 1657.49 1340.61
Vei(kN) 619.93 293.65 277.34 466.58 662.83 677.79
Vy(kN) 839.48 531.41
q 1.97 2.52
2
Table 5.2– Adopted behavior factors in x and y direction and design forces obtained from the spectral analysis
(CASE 1)
FRAME 1 FRAME 2 FRAME 3 FRAME 4 FRAME 5 FRAME 6

T(s) 0.55 0.68
q 2.50 3.00
Sd(T) 4.013 2.102
Vd(kN) 278.9 127.44 115.92 174.12 226.88 231.04
6 P-∆ checks
Table 6.1- P-∆ Checks (Case 1)
P-∆ checks Hed (kN) Ptot (kN) H(m) de (m) dr=de*q θ

Direction yy 696.38 2025.82 4.50 0.030 0.08 0.05
Direction xx 696.38 2025.82 4.50 0.027 0.07 0.04
7 Ultimate Limit State checks

Equations (5.5) to (5.12) have to be satisfied.
3
IPE330 IPE300 IPE330 FRAME 6 IPE330 IPE330

FRAME 1
FRAME 4
FRAME 2
FRAME 3
FRAME 5
IPE330 IPE330 FRAME 7 IPE330 IPE330
IPE300
COLUMNS BEAMS
FRAME 4 HEB140 HEB240 IPE 270 IPE 160
COLUMNS BEAMS
FRAMES 2&3 HEB140 HEB320 IPE 270 IPE 270
4

Lx(m) 30 Ly(m) 18
eax (m) (  ) 1.5 eay (m) (  )0.9
Table 2.2–Center of Mass (CM). Center of Stiffness (CR) and Accidental Eccentricities (ea)

0.12 -1.62 -1.62 1.62 1.62
xi 0.00
yi 0.00 0.00 -0.9 0.9 -0.9 0.9
seismic forces

T(s) 0.63 0.58 0.65 0.58
2
Se(m/s ) 7.01 7.61 6.79 7.61
M(ton) 206.51 206.51 206.51 206.51
Ve(kN) 1447.01 1571.75 1402.49 1571.75
considering q=1.0)
h (m) dr (m) dr.ν Limit(m)

Direction yy 4.5 0.1000 0.050 0.045
Direction xx 4.5 0.0792 0.038 0.045
5
5 Evaluation of the behaviour factor, ‘q’. followed by spectral analysis (in order to get
Table 5.1– Estimation of the structure behaviour factors in x and y directions (CASE 1)
FRAME 1 FRAME 2 FRAME 3 FRAME 4 FRAME 5 FRAME 6 FRAME 7

T(s) 0.65 0.58
Se(m/s2) 6.79 7.61
Ve(kN) 1402.49 1571.75
Vei (kN) 413 328 276 248 138 742 766
Vy (kN) 937.87 528.90
q 1.50 2.97
(CASE 1)
FRAME 1 FRAME 2 FRAME 3 FRAME 4 FRAME 5 FRAME 6 FRAME 7

T(s) 0.65 0.58
q 2.00 3.50
Se(m/s2) 3.40 2.17
Vd(kN) 260.24 158.32 131.72 117.38 71.80 220.06 241.62
6 P-∆ checks
Hed (kN) Ptot (kN) H(m) de (m) dr=de*q θ

Direction yy 739.46 2025.82 4.50 0.050 0.099 0.06
Direction xx 461.68 2025.82 4.50 0.025 0.050 0.05

8 SUMMARY OF THE DESIGN PROCEDURE (structures 3&4)

Both structures are torsionally stiff since the first two modes of vibration are translation in x
and y directions. The design is governed by the seismic SLS checks, particularly in the case of
the irregular structure, where it was observed that the only way to reduce the storey drift was to
increase frame 1 sections in order to reduce the inherent eccentricity introduced by frame 4.
6
FRAME 7
IPE300
IPE300
FRAME 1
FRAME 2
FRAME 3
FRAME 4
IPE200
IPE200
IPE300
IPE300
FRAME 8
COLUMNS BEAMS
External Internal External Internal
Frames 1&4 HEB 140 HEB 140 IPE 220 IPE 160
Frames 5&6 HEB 180 IPE 300
Frames7&8 HEB 140 HEB 180 IPE 300 IPE 270
COLUMNS BEAMS

Lx(m) 30 Ly(m) 18
eax (m) (  ) 1.5 eay (m) (  ) 0.9
7
Table 2.2–Center of Mass (CM). Center of Stiffness (CR) and Accidental Eccentricities (ea)

0.00 -1.50 -1.50 1.50 1.50
xi 0.00
yi 0.00 0.00 -0.9 0.9 -0.9 0.9
seismic forces

0.67 0.72
T(s) 0.66 0.72
6.589 6.131
Se(m/s2) 6.689 6.131
206.51 206.51
M (ton) 206.51 206.51
1360.62 1266.14
Ve(kN) 1381.24 1266.14
considering q=1.0)

Direction yy 4.5 0.0975 0.049 0.045
Direction xx 4.5 0.044 0.022 0.045
5 Evaluation of the behaviour factor, ‘q’, followed by spectral analysis (in order to get
FRAME 1 FRAME 2 FRAME 3 FRAME 4 FRAME 5 FRAME 6 FRAME 7 FRAME 8

T(s) 0.66 0.72
2
Se(m/s ) 6.689 6.131
Ve(kN) 1381.24 1266.14
Vei(kN) 225.35 465.27 465.27 225.35 138.68 138.68 494.39 494.39
Vy (kN) 881.61 724.30
q 1.57 1.75
8
(CASE 1)
FRAME 1 FRAME 2 FRAME 3 FRAME 4 FRAME 5 FRAME 6 FRAME 7 FRAME 8

T(s) 0.67 0.72
q 2.00 2.50
2
Sd(m/s ) 3.294 2.453
Vd(kN) 142.1 241.26 214.7 80.96 59.54 61.36 198.68 224.86
6 P-∆ checks

Direction xx 679.02 2025.82 4.50 0.049 0.097 0.06
Direction yy 544.44 2025.82 4.50 0.036 0.071 0.06

9
FRAME 8
IPE300

FRAME 1
FRAME 2
FRAME 3
FRAME 4
FRAME 5
IPE200

IPE300
FRAME 9
Figure1.1- Torsionally restrained irregular structure (structure 4)
COLUMNS BEAMS
Frame 4 HEB 180 HEB 180 IPE 270 IPE 160
Table 1.2– Adopted Sections (Seismic Design-1st option)
COLUMNS BEAMS
Frames 2.3&4 HEB 240 HEB 240 IPE 270 IPE 160
10
Table 1.3– Adopted Sections (Seismic Design- 2nd option)
COLUMNS BEAMS
Frames 1 HEB 180 HEB 240 IPE 270 IPE 160
Frames 4 HEB 240 HEB 240 IPE 270 IPE 160
Frames 5 HEB 180 HEB 180

Lx(m) 30 Ly(m) 18
eax (m) (  ) 1.5 eay (m) (  )0.9
Table 2.2– Center of Mass (CM), Center of Stiffness (CR) and Accidental Eccentricities (ea)
(1st option) (2nd option) CASE 1 CASE 3 CASE 3 CASE 4

Coordinates (m) CM CR (w/out ea) CR (w/out ea) ea ea ea ea
1.83 0.73 -2.23 0.77 -2.23 0.77
xi 0.00
yi 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.9 -0.9 0.9 0.9
seismic forces

0.60 0.71
T(s) 0.62 0.71
2 7.358 6.218
Se(m/s ) 7.120 6.218
206.51 206.51
M (ton) 206.51 206.51
1519.36 1283.97
Ve(kN) 1470.35 1283.97
11
considering q=1.0)
Table 4.1– SLS checks (CASE 1- 1st option)

Direction yy 4.5 0.106 0.053 0.045
Direction xx 4.5 0.089 0.045 0.045
Table 4.2– SLS checks (CASE 1-2nd option)

Direction yy 4.5 0.091 0.046 0.045
Direction xx 4.5 0.0863 0.043 0.045
Table 5.1– Estimation of the structure behaviour factors in x and y directions (CASE 1-2nd option)
FRAME 1 FRAME 2 FRAME 3 FRAME 4 FRAME 5 FRAME 6 FRAME 7 FRAME 8 FRAME 9

T(s) 0.60 0.71
Se(m/s2) 7.358 6.218
Ve(kN) 1519.36 1283.97
Vei(kN) 369.08 399.83 369.08 246.05 135.33 178.22 177.96 448.17 479.62
Vy (kN) 971.57 757.12
q 1.56 1.70
(CASE 1-2nd option)
FRAME 1 FRAME 2 FRAME 3 FRAME 4 FRAME 5 FRAME 6 FRAME 7 FRAME 8 FRAME 9

T(s) 0.60 0.71
q 2.00 2.50
Sd(T) 3.679 2.487
208.34 213.66 182.74 116.50 62.40 73.30 74.76 201.04 219.02
Vd(kN)
12
6 P-∆ checks
Table 6.1- P-∆ Checks (Case 1-2nd option)

Direction yy 845.04 2025.82 4.50 0.045 0.091 0.05
Direction xx 628.25 2025.82 4.50 0.035 0.069 0.05

8 SUMMARY OF THE DESIGN PROCEDURE (structures 3&4)

The structures 3 and 4 are also torsionally stiff since their first two modes of vibration are
translational in both directions.
Conversely to structures 1 and 2, structures 3 and 4 are torsionally restrained. For this reason it
was possible to decrease the internal columns sections (HEB 320 to HEB 240).
The design was also governed by the serviceability drift limits imposed by EC8. As before, it
was observed that the only way to reduce the storey drift it to reduce the introduced accidental
(regular structure) or inherent (irregular structure) eccentricities.
In the limit, it would mean to lose regularity criteria, in the case of the regular structure, and
eliminate the irregularities (introduced by considering frame 4), in the case of the irregular
structure.
The 1st and 2nd options presented for structure 4 illustrate the above mentioned. The reduction of
the inherent eccentricity from 1.83 to 0.73 reduces the story drift from 0.53 to 0.46.
13
B'
AA'
IPE240
IPE300
IPE300
IPE300
IPE240
IPE300
fi 139.7x3.2
37°
HEB 100 HEB 120 HEB 120 HEB 120 HEB 120 HEB 100 IPE330 IPE330 FRAME 3 IPE330 IPE330
A A'
FRAME 1
FRAME2
IPE160
IPE200
IPE200
IPE160
IPE330 IPE330 FRAME4 IPE330 IPE330
BB'
IPE300 IPE160 IPE300
IPE240
IPE300
IPE300
IPE300
IPE240
IPE300
fi 139.7x3.2
HEB 120 HEB 120 48° HEB120 HEB 120

Figure1.1- Torsionally unrestrained regular structure (structure 5)
Table 1.1– Sections obtained from Static Design/ Sections Adopted
STATIC DESIGN SEISMIC DESIGN

Columns Beams Columns Beams
Frames 1&2 HEB120 IPE 160 HEB140 IPE 160
Braces C H S 139.7 x 3.2 C H S 139.7 x 3.2

Lx(m) 30 Ly(m) 18
eax (m) (  ) 1.5 eay (m) (  )0.9
Table 2.2– Center of Mass (CM) , Center of Stiffness (CR) with and without Accidental Eccentricities

0.00 -1.50 -1.50 1.50 1.50
xi 0.00
yi 0.00 0.00 -0.9 0.9 -0.9 0.9
14
seismic forces

0.48 0.41
T(s) 0.48 0.42
2 8.829 8.829
Se(m/s ) 8.829 8.829
206.51 206.51
M (ton) 206.51 206.51
1823.23 1823.23
Ve(kN) 1823.23 1823.23
considering q=1.0)

Direction yy 4.5 0.082 0.041 0.045
Direction xx 4.5 0.050 0.025 0.045
FRAME 1 FRAME 2 FRAME 3 FRAME 4

T(s) 0.48 0.41
2
Se(m/s ) 8.83 8.83
Ve(kN) 1823.23 1823.23
Vei(kN) 1207.78 627.07 760.08 1058.58
Vyi(kN) 488.80 670.13
q(i) 3.73 2.72
15
(CASE 1)

T(s) 0.48 0.41
q adopt 4.50 3.00
Sd(T) 2.207 2.943
Vd(kN) 224.22 257.40 313.57 297.13
6 P-∆ checks

Direction yy 481.61 2025.82 4.50 0.0223 0.100 0.09
Direction xx 610.70 2025.82 4.50 0.0164 0.049 0.04
7.1 Braces design checks
Table 7.1- Brace design checks (Case 1)
Braces 
Ned (kN) Npl.Rd(kN) Ω Ω min
Frame 1 -335.09 486.35 1.45 1.829 1.24
Frame 2 -384.67 486.35 1.26 1.829
Frame 3 -392.63 486.35 1.24 0.000
Frame 4 -372.05 486.35 1.31 0.000
7.2 Beams & Columns design Checks

The beams and columns should be checked to remain elastic in order to ensure that dissipative
behavior is located in the braces. After computing the beams and columns design forces
equations (5.5) to (5.12) have to be satisfied.
16
B' C'

BB'
fi 168.3x5
IPE240
IPE300
IPE300
IPE240
IPE300
IPE300
HEB 120 HEB 120 48° HEB120 HEB 120
A A'
FRAME 1
FRAME 2
FRAME 3
IPE160
IPE160
IPE160
CC'
IPE240
IPE300
IPE300
IPE240
IPE300
IPE300
fi 139.7x3.2
HEB 120 HEB 120 48° HEB120 HEB 120

B C
AA'
fi 139.7x3.2
37°
HEB 100 HEB 120 HEB 120 HEB 120 HEB 120 HEB 100
Figure1.1- Torsionally unrestrained irregular structure (structure 6)

Frames 3 HEB120 IPE 200 HEB140 IPE 200
Braces 3. 4&5 C H S 139.7 x 3.2 C H S 139.7 x 3.2
Braces 1&2 C H S 139.7 x 3.2 C H S 168.3 x 5

Lx(m) 30 Ly(m) 18
eax (m) (  ) 1.5 eay (m) (  )0.9
Table 2.2– Center of Mass (CM). Center of Stiffness (CR) and Accidental Eccentricities
CR (w/out ea) CASE 1 CASE 2 CASE 3 CASE 4

Coordinates(m) CM ea ea ea w/ ea
2.69 -4.19 1.19 -4.19 1.19
xi 0.00
yi 0.00 0.00 -0.9 -0.9 0.9 0.9
17
seismic forces
With Accidental eccentricity(Case 1)

Without Accidental eccentricities
0.35 0.43 0.28 0.43
T(s)
8.83 8.83 8.83 8.83
Se(m/s2)
206.51 206.51 206.51 206.51
M (ton)
1823.23 1823.23 1823.23 1823.23
Ve(kN)
considering q=1.0)
4.5 0.070 0.037 0.045

Direction yy
4.5 0.054 0.027 0.045

Direction xx
FRAME 1 FRAME 2 FRAME 3 FRAME 3 FRAME 4

T(s) 0.28 0.43
2
Se(m/s ) 8.829 8.83
Ve(kN) 1823.23 1823.23
Vei(kN) 1251.70 586.81 3.23 873.66 946.46
Vy (kN) 883.01 749.51
q 2.06 2.43
18
(CASE 1)

T(s) 0.28 0.43
q 2.50 2.70
Sd(T) 3.270 3.270
373.47 256.33 222.83 363.58 364.72
Vd(kN)
6 P-∆ checks

852.64 2025.82 4.50 0.0277 0.069 0.04
Direction yy
728.30 2025.82 4.50 0.0199 0.054 0.03

Direction xx
Braces
BRACES Ned (kN) Npl.Rd(kN) Ω 
-558.14 -912.35 1.63 1.227
Frame 1
-383.09 -912.35 2.38 1.227
Frame 2
-366.04 -486.35 1.33 1.468 1.06
Frame 3
-455.25 -486.35 1.07 1.829
Frame 4
-456.67 -486.35 1.06 1.829
Frame 5

After computing the beams and columns design forces equations (5.5) to (5.12) have to be
satisfied.
19
8 SUMMARY OF THE DESIGN PROCEDURE (structures 5 &6)
Both structures are torsionally flexible since the 1st mode of vibration is rotational.
The beams design was governed by the static serviceability limits states; the columns design
was ruled by the criterion that beams and columns must remain elastic during the seismic event
in order to ensure that the dissipative behavior is located in the brace; and braces design were
governed by the resistance of the sections (frames 1 and 2 braces sections had to be increased
comparatively to frames 3.4 and 5).
20
B'
A A'
AA'
IPE240
IPE300
IPE300
IPE300
IPE240
IPE300
fi 139.7x3.2
37° IPE330 IPE330 IPE330 IPE330 IPE330

FRAME 1
FRAME 2
IPE200
IPE160
IPE200
IPE160
BB'
IPE240
IPE300
IPE300
IPE300
IPE240
IPE300
fi 139.7x3.2
HEB 100 HEB 100 48° HEB100 HEB 100


Braces C H S 139.7 x 3.2 C H S 139.7 x 3.2

Lx(m) 30 Ly(m) 18
eax (m) (  ) 1.5 eay (m) (  )0.9
Table 2.2– Center of Mass (CM), Center of Stiffness (CR) and Accidental Eccentricities

0.00 -1.50 -1.50 1.50 1.50
xi 0.00
yi 0.00 0.00 -0.9 0.9 -0.9 0.9
21
seismic forces
Direction yy Direction xx
T(s) 0.47 0.43
2
Se(m/s ) 8.829 8.829
M (ton) 206.51 206.51
Ve(kN) 1823.23 1823.23
considering q=1.0)

Direction yy 4.5 0.055 0.027 0.045
Direction xx 4.5 0.043 0.022 0.045

T(s) 0.47 0.43
Se(m/s2) 8.829 8.83
Ve(kN) 1823.23 1823.23
Vei(kN) 975.99 853.99 882.40 937.73
Vy (kN) 603.69 756.49
q 3.02 2.41
22
(CASE 1)

T(s) 0.47 0.43
qadop 3.50 3.00
2
Sd(m/s ) 2.523 2.943
Vd(kN) 292.58 247.05 299.87 324.12
6 P-∆ checks

Direction yy 539.63 2025.82 4.50 0.0156 0.055 0.05
Direction xx 623.99 2025.82 4.50 0.0143 0.043 0.03
Braces 
Ned (kN) Npl.Rd(kN) Ω Ω min
Frame 1 437.25 486.35 1.11 1.631
Frame 2 369.21 486.35 1.32 1.631 1.11
Frame 3 -375.47 486.35 -1.30 2.032
Frame 4 -405.84 486.35 -1.20 2.032

satisfied.
23
B' C'
BB' IPE330 IPE330 FRAME 4 IPE330 IPE330
IPE300 IPE160 IPE300 A A'

fi 139.7x3.2
IPE240
IPE300
IPE300
IPE240
IPE300
IPE300
HEB 100 HEB 100 48° HEB100 HEB 100
FRAME 3
FRAME 2
FRAME 1
IPE200
IPE160
IPE160
CC'
fi 139.7x3.2
IPE240
IPE300
IPE300
IPE240
IPE300
IPE300
HEB 120 HEB 120 HEB120 HEB 120
B C
AA'
fi 139.7x3.2
37°
Figure1.1- Torsionally restrained irregular structure (structure 8)

Frame 3 HEB120 IPE 200 HEB120 IPE 200
Braces C H S 139.7 x 3.2 C H S 139.7 x 3.2

Lx(m) 30 Ly(m) 18
eax (m) (  ) 1.5 eay (m) (  )0.9
Table 2.2– Center of Mass (CM), Center of Stiffness (CR) and Accidental Eccentricities

3.63 -5.13 2.13 -5.13 2.13
xi 0.00
yi 0.00 0.00 -0.9 -0.9 0.9 0.9
24
seismic forces

T(s) 0.40 0.43 0.41 0.43
2
Se(m/s ) 8.829 8.829 8.829 8.829
M (ton) 206.51 206.51 206.51 206.51
Ve(kN) 1823.23 1823.23 1823.23 1823.23
considering q=1.0)
SLS checks h (m) dr (m) dr.ν Limit(m)

4.5 0.048 0.024 0.045
Direction yy
4.5 0.044 0.022 0.045
Direction xx

T(s) 0.41 0.43
2
Se(m/s ) 8.829 8.83
Ve(kN) 1823.23 1823.23
Vei(kN) 827.15 478.23 530.69 887.15 936.09
Vy(kN) 744.39 757.82
q 2.45 2.41
25
(CASE 1)

T(s) 0.41 0.43
qadop 3.00 3.00
2
Sd(m/s ) 2.94 2.94
301.58 151.14 177.05 309.98 330.20
Vd(kN)
6 P-∆ checks

629.76 2025.82 4.50 0.0160 0.048 0.03
Direction yy
640.18 2025.82 4.50 0.0146 0.044 0.03

Direction xx
Braces Ned (kN) Npl.Rd(kN) Ω   Ω min

450.71 486.35 1.08 1.631
Frame 1
225.87 486.35 2.15 1.631
Frame 2
264.59 486.35 1.84 1.631 1.08
Frame 3
388.13 486.35 1.25 2.032
Frame 4
413.46 486.35 1.18 2.032
Frame 5

satisfied.
8 SUMMARY OF THE DESIGN PROCEDURE (structures 7 &8)

The structures are torsionally stiff since the 1st and 2nd modes of vibration are translation in y
and x directions, respectively.
26
The beams design was governed by the static serviceability limits states; the columns design in
y direction was ruled by the criterion that beams and columns must remain elastic during the
seismic event in order to ensure that the dissipative behavior is located in the brace, while in x
direction the sections size was determined by stability checks; braces design was imposed by
the non-dimensional slenderness parameter.
27

Effect of Building Configuration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effect of Building Configuration

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effect of Building Configuration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DESIGN PROCEDURES

Rita Peres, Rita Bento, Miguel Castro

Manuscript prepared April, 2011

DESIGN OF THE STUDIED STRUCTURES ............................................................................. 4

1 STRUCTURES CONFIGURATION (1 storey structures)................................................... 4

1.1 GROUP 1 - Structures with stable hysteretic behavior (MRF) ..................................... 4

1.2 GROUP 2 - Structures with unstable hysteretic behavior (CBF) .................................. 5

3.1 Static Loads ................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Seismic Loads ............................................................................................................... 6

4 LOAD COMBINATIONS .................................................................................................... 7

5 STATIC DESIGN ................................................................................................................. 7

6 SEISMIC DESIGN ............................................................................................................. 11

APPENDIX- SUMMARY OF THE DESIGN PROCEDURES ................................................. 16

In the scope of the research project POCI/ECM/59306/2004, a group of steel structures is

1. Laterally unrestrained regular structures ( CM=CR=CV);

5. Laterally unrestrained regular structures ( CM=CR=CV);

1 STRUCTURES CONFIGURATION (1 storey structures)

1.1 GROUP 1 - Structures with stable hysteretic behavior (MRF)

2.00 2.00 2.00

Figure 1- Laterally unrestrained regular& irregular structures (structures 1 & 2)

2.00 2.00 2.00

Figure 2- Laterally restrained regular & irregular structures (structures 3&4)

FRAME 1 FRAME 3 IPE330

Figure 3- Laterally unrestrained regular & irregular structures (structure 5 & 6)

Figure.4- Laterally restrained regular & irregular structure (structure 7&8)

Table.1– Materials properties

3.1 Static Loads

Dead Loads- G Live Loads- Q

Note: The wind load is not considered in the design

3.2 Seismic Loads

dividing it by the behaviour factor (q).

Figure.1- Elastic Response Spectra (Type 1; Soil type B; PGA=0,30g)

Ultimate limit state combinations (ULS)

- Persistent and transient design situation

with  G =1,35 and  Q =1,5.

Serviceability limit state combination (SLS)

h  2 / h is the reduction coefficient associated with the storey

Elements subjected to bending moment :

Members of class 1 and 2 cross-sections subjected to combined bending and axial

 y ,  z are the reduction factors due to buckling in compression;

 LT is the reduction factor due to lateral buckling;

6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00

IPE270 IPE270 IPE270 IPE270 IPE270

IPE330 IPE330 IPE330 IPE330

IPE270 IPE270 IPE270 IPE270 IPE270

Figure 1- Plan view of the torsionally unrestrained and regular structure

2. Determination of the seismic elastic forces based on the structure’s fundamental

4. Evaluation of the behaviour factor, ‘q’.

be equal to the first yield base shear ( V1 y ):

Vel Vel V1 y Vel

V y is lateral capacity of the structure;

Vd is lateral force considered in the design process;

M ( EEk ) is the moment due to a unit seismic action;

 is the load factor;

5. Determination of the seismic design forces followed by elastic structural analysis

Concentric Braced Frames (Group 2)

1.3    2.0 (6.8)

N pl, Rd is the design resistance computed as indicated by EC3;~