Conventional I-shape brace member bolted connections under seismic loading: Laboratory study. (September 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rudman, Alina; Tremblay, Robert; Rogers, Colin A.
• Is Part Of: Journal of constructional steel research. Volume 184(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-09
• Subjects: Steel braces -- Conventional construction -- Bolted connections -- Laboratory testing -- Seismic loading; Steel, Structural -- Periodicals; Building, Iron and steel -- Periodicals; Acier de construction -- Périodiques; Construction métallique -- Périodiques; 624.1821
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2021.106795
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0143-974X

Abstract

Abstract: In many regions of the world, a conventional low-ductility concentrically braced frame (CBF) is commonly chosen as the seismic force resisting system. The energy dissipation is not restricted to yielding and buckling of the braces, as would be required for ductile braced frames; rather, energy dissipation is assumed to occur through localised yielding and friction in connections, as well as limited member yielding. The objective of this study was to characterize by means of laboratory testing the inelastic response of full-scale conventional I-shape braces and their bolted connections under reversed-cyclic seismic loading. Six brace specimens comprising two commonly used bolted connection types, flange plate and flange angle, were designed following the Type CC provisions prescribed by CSA S16. The brace specimens achieved storey drift ratios of 1%–2%, due to inelastic deformations in both the braces and the connections, even though capacity based design provisions were not incorporated in their design. Energy dissipation resulted from overall and local brace buckling, gusset plate buckling, tension yielding of flange plates, angles and gusset plates, block shear failure of brace webs and angles, bolt fracture and fracture of the gusset plates, along with bolt slip. However, the observed performance of these braces and connections in this laboratory based study is not necessarily guaranteed to be replicated for all conventional CBF designs due to the conservative nature and variability in accuracy of the existing CSA S16 design equations that were relied upon to design and detail the test specimens. Highlights: Inelastic response of conventional I-shape braces and their bolted connections. Design carried out without using seismic capacity protection. Six full-scale specimens tested under reversed cyclic seismic loading. Inelastic response due to an assortment of deformations in braces and connections. Conventional brace specimens could achieve storey drift ratios of 1%–2%.