Experimental performance of a multi‐storey braced frame structure with non‐structural industrial components subjected to synthetic ground motions

Abstract

The seismic risk assessment of industrial facilities mainly relies on historical data and the analysis and design of uncoupled secondary components. Accordingly, the dynamic interaction between primary structures and process equipment is overlooked. The SPIF project -Seismic Performance of Multi-Component Systems in Special Risk Industrial Facilities -was carried out to respond to this gap, within the European H2020 SERA framework. Its objective regarded the investigation of the seismic behaviour of an archetype industrial multi-storey steel moment resisting frame (MRF) structure equipped with non-structural components (NSCs) by means of shaking table tests. The goal of the proposed study was to extend the interaction analysis between a primary multi-storey braced frame (BF) steel structure and NSCs in a performance-based earthquake engineering (PBEE) perspective. Along this vein, to excite the vibration periods of the NSCs and thus enhance possible coupling with the primary structure, a synthetic site-based ground motion model (GMM) was employed. More precisely, the proposed research intended: (i) to severely excite the process equipment and supplement the scarcity of real records with a specific frequency content by means of a stochastic GMM; (ii) to quantify seismic-induced force and displacement demands of secondary components and their effects on the primary BF structure.The evaluation of the experimental data clearly shows buckling in the bracing system of the BF configuration and a strong interaction between vertical tanks and floor crossbeams of the BF. At the very least, the favourable performance of the archetype BF under strong seismic records is demonstrated.

Acceleration-sensitive ancillary elements in industrial facilities: alternative seismic design approaches in the new Eurocode

“…ASCE 7-16 (ASCE 2017) sets the limit to 25% of the effective seismic weight of the supporting structure, a condition that was satisfied for the considered supporting structure, and more likely for the majority of the reinforced concrete buildings supporting ordinary industrial equipment. A recent experimental study undertaken within the European H2020 SERA research project on a threestorey industrial steel frame structure with flexible diaphragms supporting four tanks and a cabinet (Butenweg et al 2021;Nardin et al 2022) showcased that the effect of the dynamic interaction between the nonstructural components and the primary supporting system is significant for contents with large masses compared to those of the pertinent building. For the case at hand, the seismic weight of the supporting structure is approximately equal to 5600kN whereas the weight of the above ground equipment is about 407kN, which is approximately equal to 7.3% the seismic weight of the building.…”

Probabilistic assessment of the rules used to combine peak floor responses of special concentrically braced frames under orthogonal seismic effects

“…1,2 In the context of the PBEE framework, the importance of nonstructural component (NSC) performance in estimating economic and functional loss and the ensuing recovery, has been heavily emphasized in the research literature. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Also, the state-of-the-art version of the PBEE framework specified in FEMA-P58 11 incorporates the seismic damage and loss evaluation of NSCs. In general, NSCs can be categorized as being acceleration-sensitive (e.g., suspended ceilings, hanging lamps), velocity-sensitive (e.g., bookcases, filing cabinets), and displacement-sensitive elements (e.g., infill walls, stairs).…”

Stability assessment and development of design criteria for SCBF systems with in‐plane buckling braces

“…Eurocode EN 1998-1-1, 16 Australian code AS 1170.4, 17 and Canadian code CSA S16 18 provide recommendations for semi-rigid and partial-strength connections for the braced frame systems without any guidelines on the design and detailing of end connections. 19 New Zealand code NZS 3404:1997 20 implicitly discussed all the three types of connections (e.g., DC, OOPB, and IPB) and incorporates the frame action to accommodate the opening and closing of the beam-column joints. Though ANSI/AISC 341-16 5 implicitly includes all three types of brace connections, no design checks are recommended to prevent the out-of-plane buckling of braces in IPB braced frames.…”

“…Japanese code AIJ 15 provides guidelines for the direct connection (DC) and OOPB braced frames and recommends only the brace axial force for the design of the interface weld. Eurocode EN 1998–1‐1, 16 Australian code AS 1170.4, 17 and Canadian code CSA S16 18 provide recommendations for semi‐rigid and partial‐strength connections for the braced frame systems without any guidelines on the design and detailing of end connections 19 . New Zealand code NZS 3404:1997 20 implicitly discussed all the three types of connections (e.g., DC, OOPB, and IPB) and incorporates the frame action to accommodate the opening and closing of the beam‐column joints.…”