Beam-to-column joints equipped with friction dampers are promising solutions to improve the performance of steel moment resisting frames due to the possibility to guarantee large dissipation capacity limiting the structural damage under severe seismic conditions. In this paper, the experimental tests and the numerical simulations of two types of joints are shown and discussed with the aim of developing pre-qualified configurations. The friction dampers are designed to be easily removable from both the lower beam flange and the column face by means of bolted connections. The devices are composed of a stack of steel plates conceived to assure symmetrical friction. The friction surface is set in vertical direction in first case and in horizontal direction in the second type. The experimental tests confirmed the effectiveness of both examined joints and the finite element analyses allowed characterizing their local response, thus providing additional insights to improve the design requirements.
Beam-to-column joints equipped with friction dampers are promising solutions to improve the performance of steel moment resisting frames due to the possibility to guarantee large dissipation capacity limiting the structural damage under severe seismic conditions. In this paper, the experimental tests and the numerical simulations of two types of joints are shown and discussed with the aim of developing pre-qualified configurations. The friction dampers are designed to be easily removable from both the lower beam flange and the column face by means of bolted connections. The devices are composed of a stack of steel plates conceived to assure symmetrical friction. The friction surface is set in vertical direction in first case and in horizontal direction in the second type. The experimental tests confirmed the effectiveness of both examined joints and the finite element analyses allowed characterizing their local response, thus providing additional insights to improve the design requirements.
Background:Modern seismic code design rules are known to be based on capacity design principles. They try to assure the damage to occur in the ductile parts of the structure, such as beam ends while the other have to remain in elastic range. Therefore, in the aftermath of design earthquakes, plastic deformations at member or connection level will imply high repair costs. In the last decades, innovative structural solutions based on the so-called supplementary energy dissipation strategy allow increasing the dissipative capacity of structures through equipping it with special damping devices. In the case of substitution of dissipative zones with dissipative devices the strategy takes the name of substitutive strategy. This is the case of Moment Resisting Frames investigated in this paper, where traditional dissipa-tive zones, are equipped with innovative low damage frictional devices. However, the current version of codes does not provide any rules to design of MRFs equipped with this type of friction joints.Methods:Therefore, this paper reports two design approaches amply investigated and compared. The first one is based on the application of the Beam-to-Column Hierarchy Criterion (BCHC) while the second one exploits the Theory of Plastic Mechanism Control (TPMC). The comparison between them is herein discussed on the basis of the results of nonlinear static and dynamic analyses.Conclusions:Structures equipped with low damage frictional connections show larger drift demand than conventional Moment Resisting Frames. However, differently from traditional structures, the larger displacement demand of MRFs equipped with friction joints does not corre-spond to structural damage, thus allowing the reparability of the structure.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.