Cyclic Performance Evaluation of Hollow Structural Section (HSS) and Concrete-Filled Tube (CFT) Braces

Abstract

Hollow structural sections (HSS) are widely used as braces because they have inherent axial, flexural, and torsional capacities. Delaying or preventing local buckling is accomplished by concrete infill in HSS braces to improve their cyclic response heavily relying upon three key parameters: (1) presence of concrete infill, (2) width (diameter)-to-thickness ratio, and (3) length-to-width (diameter) ratio impress the cyclic response of HSS braces. Nevertheless, it is not clear that based on which parameter, concrete infill can significantly enhance the peak compressive strength and energy dissipation capacity of HSS braces. This paper aims to investigate this concern while presenting a numerical study on the cyclic response of 120 HSS and Concrete-Filled Tubes (CFT) braces with various geometric characteristics. Square and circular cross-sections, 10, 12, 13.33, 20, 30, 33.33, and 50 width (diameter)-to-thickness ratios and 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 37.5, 45, 50, 75, and 112.5 length-to-width (diameter) ratios are selected for the numerical investigation. Obtained results indicated that concrete infill can increase peak compressive and post-buckling strengths and energy dissipation capacity of HSS braces around 81%, 43%, and 73%, respectively. It was found that concrete infill and parameters of width (diameter)-to-thickness ratio and length-to-width (diameter) ratio influence the cyclic response of HSS braces differently. On the other hand, concrete infill noticeably enhances the peak compressive strength of HSS braces with larger values of width (diameter)-to-thickness ratio and energy dissipation capacity of such braces with lower values of length-to-width (diameter) ratio.

Experimental evaluation of composite and non‐composite columns and braces in special concentrically braced frames

“…Fell et al [ 10 ] and Fell and Kanvinde [ 11 ] conducted a series of experimental studies on square‐HSS, circular‐HSS, and wide‐flange braces. To evaluate the effect of concrete core presence, the behavior of HSS and CFT braces was experimentally and numerically investigated by Broderick et al, [ 12 ] Sheehan and Chan, [ 13 ] and Ebrahimi et al [ 14 ] Schneider, [ 15 ] Shams and Saadeghvaziri, [ 16 ] and Huang et al [ 17 ] investigated the ultimate capacity of CFT columns by considering the parameters of cross‐section shapes and thickness. Yazdi et al [ 18 ] conducted multi‐axis experimental tests on both square‐ and circular‐CFT columns to evaluate the ability of these columns for forming a ductile soft story in multistory buildings.…”

“…In addition, through-gusset plate connections in SCBFs with square-CFT and circular-CFT columns were experimentally and numerically evaluated by Ebrahimi et al [26,27] Square-HSS/CFT cross-sections have been widely constructed and used in multistory framed buildings. [28,29] However, some investigations indicated that circular-CFT cross-sections showed better behavior than square-CFT cross-sections due to more uniform and larger concrete confinement. Limited studies have investigated the behavior of circular-HSS/CFT columns and braces in SCBFs experimentally.…”

Mechanical behavior of metallic strip flexible pipes during reeling operation

“…To prevent possible buckling failure, there are normally three methods, namely, cross section design, constraints adoption and load control [6]. The maximum ovalization [7], diameter-to-thickness ratio [8,9] and length-to-diameter ratio [10] are important technical parameters to prevent buckling in cross section design. Besides, extra restriction on tubular structures may also a good way to increase the buckling capacity, such as U cross ties [11], ring-stiffeners [12] and fiber-reinforced wrap [13,14].…”

Designing gusset plates of chevron‐SCBFs through a new method

“…Braced frame systems have been widely employed in civil structures, and numerous investigations have evaluated their performance under seismic excitation. [ 1–3 ] A corner gusset plate possesses the interfaces to both beam and column. Several methods have been proposed to calculate the force demands at the corner gusset plate interfaces to beam and column, but the only proposed method for determining the dimensions of corner gusset plates is Uniform Force Method (UFM) presented in AISC 1991.…”