土木工程建筑外文文献及翻译 第2页
which no more than 5% of the lateral deflections arise from connection deformation [6]. The 5% value refers only to deflection due to beam–column deformation and not to frame deflections that result from column panel zone deformation [6, 9].
The analysis was performed using an expected value of the yield stress and ultimate strength. These values were equal to 372 MPa (54 ksi) and 518 MPa (75 ksi), respectively. The plastic hinges’ load–deformation behavior was approximated by the generalized curve suggested by NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings [6] as shown in Fig. 3. △y was calcu- lated based on Eqs. (5.1) and (5.2) from [6], as follows:
P–M hinge load–deformation model points C, D and E are based on Table 5.4 from [6] for
△y was taken as 0.01 rad per Note 3 in [6], Table 5.8. Shear hinge load- load–deformation model points C, D and E are based on Table 5.8 [6], Link Beam, Item a. A strain hardening slope between points B and C of 3% of the elastic slope was assumed for both models.
The following relationship was used to account for moment–axial load interaction [6]:
where MCE is the expected moment strength, ZRBS is the RBS plastic section modulus (in3), is the expected yield strength of the material (ksi), P is the axial force in the girder (kips) and is the expected axial yield force of the RBS, equal to (kips). The ultimate flexural capacities of the beam and the link of the model are shown in Table 1.
Fig. 4 shows qualitatively the distribution of the bending moment, shear force, and axial force in the CGMRF under lateral load. The shear and axial force in the beams are less significant to the response of the beams as compared with the bending moment, although they must be considered in design. The qualita- tive distribution of internal forces illustrated in Fig. 5 is fundamentally the same for both elastic and inelastic ranges of behavior. The specific values of the internal forces will change as elements of the frame yield and internal for- ces are redistributed. The basic patterns illustrated in Fig. 5, however, remain the same.
Inelastic static pushover analysis was carried out by applying monotonically
increasing lateral displacements, at the top of both columns, as shown in Fig. 6. After the four RBS have yielded simultaneously, a uniform yielding in the web and at the ends of the flanges of the vertical link will form. This is the yield mechanism for the frame , with plastic hinges also forming at the base of the columns if they are fixed. The base shear versus drift angle of the model is shown in Fig. 7 . The sequence of inelastic activity in the frame is shown on the figure. An elastic component, a long transition (consequence of the beam plastic hinges being formed simultaneously) and a narrow yield plateau characterize the pushover curve.
The plastic rotation capacity, qp, is defined as the total plastic rotation beyond which the connection strength starts to degrade below 80% [7]. This definition is different from that outlined in Section 9 (Appendix S) of the AISC Seismic Provisions [8, 10]. Using Eq. (2) derived by Uang and Fan [7], an estimate of the RBS plastic rotation capacity was found to be 0.037 rad:
Fyf was substituted for Ry•Fy [8], where Ry is used to account for the differ- ence between the nominal and the expected yield strengths (Grade 50 steel, Fy=345 MPa and Ry =1.1 are used).
上一页 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] 下一页
土木工程建筑外文文献及翻译 第2页下载如图片无法显示或论文不完整，请联系qq752018766
