×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

BRBF Design
2

BRBF Design

BRBF Design

(OP)
Hi All,

I have couple of questions regarding BRBF (AISC Code)

•Should the BRBF brace be designed to resist gravity loads along with lateral loads? When the brace connects to column, small portion of the column load may be taken up by the brace. Should the brace be designed for this?

•When BRBF attaches to the column, are there any special detailing requirements? Should we have a beam spanning laterally at the brace column intersection like in brace beam intersection?

Thanks

RE: BRBF Design

Tricky. If you've got a system that draws serious load into the braced core after consideration of construction sequencing etc, then I don't see how that could be ignored. It will change what and under how much load your braces will yield with implications for drift and strength. There might be some offsetting effects between the T&C braces if things are symmetric. How much load are we talking about relative to the brace yield strength?

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: BRBF Design

BRBF braces should not be designed to resist gravity loads. Imagine a chevron braced frame with a point load applied directly over the braces. 50% of the load is resisted by the vertical component of each brace force. During an earthquake, the brace resisting seismic loads in compression will yield earlier than the brace resisting loads in tension. However, after the first load cycle, both braces have yielded and are in equilibrium with each other (assume equal compression and tension strength). This leaves the point load to be resisted entirely by the beam. As the braces unload, the compression and tension unload in unison and the point load continues to be resisted by the beam.

It is important to understand that designing the braces for gravity loads will build additional overstrength into the brace, which is never great for your seismic fuse. Additionally, if you have a tall building and are designing the braces for gravity loads, it is likely that the brace force due to gravity loads will be significant compared to the brace force due to seismic loads at the upper stories. At the lower stories, the gravity loads will be smaller relative to seismic loads in the braces. This leaves you with high overstrength in the upper stories and low overstrength in the lower stories, which is likely to cause a concentration of ductility demand at the lower levels versus evenly distributing it up the building like you want.

Also note that AISC 341 F4.3 requires that braces shall not be relied on to resist gravity forces.

RE: BRBF Design

Section F4.2. Basis of Design (AISC Seismic Provisions 341-10):
...Braces shall be designed, tested and detailed to accommodate expected deformations. Expected deformations are those corresponding to a story drift of at least 2% of the story height or two times the design story drift, whichever is larger, in addition to brace deformations resulting from deformation of the frame due to gravity loading.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: BRBF Design

JAE...The way I interpret that section is that lateral loads that are delivered to the frame by gravity loading, such as by inclined columns, should be considered in addition to seismic loads. I don't think it means that braces should be designed to support gravity loads.

RE: BRBF Design

I reviewed AISC 341 when I got back to the office this afternoon and have concluded that:

- I was wrong.
- Deker is right.
- 341 is pretty clear that BRBF are not to be designed for gravity loads.

Your explanation was excellent Deker. Thanks for that.





I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: BRBF Design

Make sure to reach out to the brace manufacturers when you get into design / detailing. It's been a few years since I've worked on one, but I believe they handled all gusset plate detailing and we provided brace forces. Star Seismic & Nippon Steel are the two biggest manufacturer's (I believe). Ian Aiken of SIE, Inc. I believe provides a lot of the support for Nippon Steel.

RE: BRBF Design

(OP)
@ Deker,

I completely agree with you regarding the chevron braces below the beam. Beam needs to be designed to resist all gravity loads.

I am concerned about the component of the gravity forces that will be taken away by the brace from the column based on the brace stiffness. Even these need not be designed for that gravity load component? Does that mean the braces in BRBF need to be sized only for lateral forces?

How do you treat these braces for wind load? What happens when wind load starts controlling?

Also, When BRBF attaches to the column, are there any special detailing requirements? Should we have a beam spanning laterally at the brace column intersection like in brace beam intersection?

Thanks

RE: BRBF Design

jdengineer,
Star Seismic is now part CoreBrace, the other major BRBF player.

RE: BRBF Design

Deker - after looking at 341 it does specifically say not to design for gravity loads in section F4.3


So not sure what they really mean in F4.2. that I quoted above.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: BRBF Design

Quote (JAE)

So not sure what they really mean in F4.2. that I quoted above.

I'm fairly certain that it's as Deker mentioned: anything where the gravity load support system would great a lateral demand of its own. Sloped columns, cantilevered floor plan, differential shrinkage of vertical elements in tall things.

@BAGW: it would be great if you could tell us:

1) What brace configuration you're using. Sounds like V-bracing or multi story X maybe?

2) What is the ratio of gravity load to yield capacity for the braces? 5%? 90%?

Quote (BAGW)

I am concerned about the component of the gravity forces that will be taken away by the brace from the column based on the brace stiffness. Even these need not be designed for that gravity load component?

Correct. There will be some gravity loads in the braces at the start of a seismic event. And, I'm sure, there will be some degree of gravity load in the braces during the entire seismic load history barring some serious good fortune. And the presence of those loads will impact the the load history of the braces. I think that the main point is to realize that, so long as the gravity framing doesn't need the braces to be viable, the system can find itself a plastic state where the lateral loads can be resisted as planned.

I keep asking about the load involved here as I think that that is an important consideration. If the gravity load on the braces is, say, 5% of AsFy, then I'd not be concerned and I'd follow the AISC recommendations on not designing the braces for gravity. On the other hand, if the gravity load is 90% of AsFy, then I think that one would have to seriously consider the impact that would have on the hysteric behavior of the braces. More than likely, you'd do something to get back to a more reasonable load ratio.

Quote (BAGW)

How do you treat these braces for wind load? What happens when wind load starts controlling?

Your lateral system can't be allowed to yield under wind load as that implies collapse. As such, I would think that you would have to consider the gravity loads in the braces. As I mentioned previously, if you have a symmetric situation, it may be that gravity loads lower one brace's capacity while increasing another's.

Quote (BAGW)

Also, When BRBF attaches to the column, are there any special detailing requirements?

See F4.6b. The gusset should not yield in flexure and, depending on the path you choose, should be designed to accommodate the angular change associated with a rotation of 0.025 rad.

Quote (BAGW)

Should we have a beam spanning laterally at the brace column intersection like in brace beam intersection?

I don't think that there is an explicit requirement for it. That said, it's hard to imagine that you wouldn't want a beam, or something akin to it, attached to the column to stabilize it at the floor level.



I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: BRBF Design

What type and size of building are we talking about? Transfer girders at BRBF beams? If you are talking a typical office building DL and LL would not need to be considered in the design of the braces. If you have a unique system you may need to consider gravity loading on the BRB. I always provide a beam at the column connection. You are providing a large plates attached to the beam and column you are going to get moment transfer at the connection.

RE: BRBF Design

BAGW...I chose a chevron braced frame to illustrate my point because I think it represents the worst case for gravity loads in the braces. The same concept would apply to your condition. I agree with KootK on his responses to your other questions and think he has provided nice explanations. I'm not clear on which direction you are asking about for the beam. If same direction as the brace, yes you would usually need a beam to deliver loads to and from the braces. If perpendicular to the brace, yes you would need to brace this point somehow which is usually accomplished by providing a beam framing into the column.

JAE...For what it's worth, my opinion is that the wording "resulting from deformation of the frame due to gravity loading" is chosen deliberately to indicate that lateral gravity loads--which cause frame deformations--need to be considered in addition to seismic loads. This makes sense since the braces are a required part of the load path for stability under lateral gravity loads. Not so with vertical gravity loads.

Out of curiosity, are BRBFs commonly used for low-seismic areas where wind governs? What advantages do they offer if using R=3?

RE: BRBF Design

Deker - agree

In wind areas with low seismic not sure BRBF's are worth it.
I don't know the cost magnitudes with these things but seems like they might be more cost than benefit - even with a kicked up seismic with R=3 when compared to typical braces.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: BRBF Design

I don't know if anybody's actually doing it but the snip below comes from NEHRPS BRBF design guide's Novel Applications section.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: BRBF Design

Yes, many high rises use outriggers. An article on one of the more recent uses.
Wilshire Grand

RE: BRBF Design

(OP)
@ Kootk

Quote (kootk)

[I keep asking about the load involved here as I think that that is an important consideration]

Its a plane Hangar. Its one story building with roof and bottom chord level. I havent yet modeled the Hangar to determine what percentage of gravity load will be resisted by the brace.

Quote (kootk)

That said, it's hard to imagine that you wouldn't want a beam, or something akin to it, attached to the column to stabilize it at the floor level

There are no beams framing into column perpendicular to the brace column intersection. We only have perimeter framing. Thats the reason I wanted to know as per the code do we need to have any lateral stability frame perpendicular to the beam column intersection.

The bracing system is multistory X brace.

Summarizing above discussion.

1) BRBF needs to be designed for resisting gravity loads. But also make sure the building performs under gravity load even after the brace fails.

2) There is no code requirement for the lateral stability at brace column intersection perpendicular to the brace






RE: BRBF Design

Code required or not, you're going to want to brace the tops of those columns by something more robust than metal deck. What's the framing look like behind the braced frame?

I don't think that you can have a multi-story BRBF X-brace in a one story building. There's no way you'd want a girt bracing the intersection of the four braces.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: BRBF Design

Check out section F4.4d of the AISC 341-16 public draft for guidance on multi-tiered frames. A girt could be designed with adequate out of plane strength and stiffness to brace the BRBs. AISC allows this in section F4.4a for V-braced frames.

RE: BRBF Design

Interesting. In concept, I do of course agree that a sufficiently stiff girt would get the job done. After all, a floor diaphragm is really just a kick-ass girt after a fashion.

I guess I'll restate my position to be that I personally question the efficacy of using a girt at the intersection of a two story BRBF X-brace. I haven't actually tried it myself which limits the validity of my opinio, but I'd have to think that the stiffness demand would be enormous.

While the draft provisions speak to the out of plane strut(girt) stiffness, they don't explicitly mention a couple of other items:

1) Column out of plane stiffness. For a multi tiered frame like this, the flexibility of the hypothetical nodal bracing must include the substantial contribution of the columns in concert with the girt.

2) Torsional strength and stiffness of the girt. The girt must be prevented from torsionally buckling about it's longitudinal axis. This is exacerbated by asymmetric brace yielding, fabrication and erection tolerances, and the fact that BRBF usually make for lousy torsional bracing.

These things are all surmountable with enough care. And perhaps these are things that a competent structural engineer should spot without needing to be spoon fed by the code. Suffice it to say, I'd be lot more comfortable having conventional lateral and torsional beam bracing at the brace intersection.

I suppose that the compression braces may well be braced by the tension braces. That stuff's contentious enough in non-seismic applications. I won't bother trying to debate it here for a hysterics system with high ductility demands.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: BRBF Design

Agree that the column stiffness needs to be included in the bracing checks, just pointing out that it can be done. I think a box or flat wide flange girt framing into the weak axis of the columns and moment connected could be a viable system. Perhaps BAGW can provide a sketch of his frame for us to comment.

RE: BRBF Design

Yeah, having noodled on it a bit more:

1) The stability demands on the girt may not be all that bad. As you noted, one of the important features of BRBF is keeping over-strength capacity in check.

2) Really, my concerns are not at all specific to BRBF or even seismic. They'd apply to any tiered system with struts between diaphragm levels.

This got me thinking about another interesting point that I'd never considered previously. The stability of the intersection joint requires:

1) Some flexural stiffness in the girt.

2) Some flexural stiffness in the tension column.

3) Some flexural stiffness in the compression column.

What's the flexural stiffness of a column that's loaded in compression to nearly it's buckling capacity? Nearly zero. Kinda scary. That said, you'd often have a couple of things going for you:

1) For high seismic, design requirements probably prevent your column compression load getting too close to Fcr. And I bet you'd have to get pretty close for it to compromise stability.

2) If your columns are oriented with the strong direction out of the plane of the brace, then your buckling load at the weak axis limit likely would not compromise your flexural stiffness out of the plane of the brace.

Sometimes structural engineering feels so complicated as to be almost intractable.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: BRBF Design

Quote (Deker)

Perhaps BAGW can provide a sketch of his frame for us to comment.

Indeed. Being an airplane hanger, I'm guessing portal frames in one direction and BRBF in the other.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: BRBF Design

Is the flexural stiffness of the column dependent on the axial load prior to buckling? Do you know of any references that cover this? Or are you referring to p-delta effects?

RE: BRBF Design

Quote (Deker)

Is the flexural stiffness of the column dependent on the axial load prior to buckling?

It is. That's fundamentally what bifurcation column buckling is generically: the compression load at which flexural stiffness disappears.

Quote (Deker)

Do you know of any references that cover this?

Off hand, I don't know of anything brief and succinct such as you're probably hoping for. It's almost always covered in some fashion in stability texts although they rarely do a great job of saying "compression = reduced stiffness" as loudly as I feel they ought to. This is one of my favorite references that deals with the subject in the context of how it's handled in software. It's free. Should be somewhere around the discussion of the geometric stiffness matrix. It's been a while.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: BRBF Design

Quote (Deker)

Or are you referring to p-delta effects?

And yes, it's absolutely about p-delta. Little delta, not big.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: BRBF Design

Thanks. I'll check it out. Is it fair to say that your concerns regarding stiffness of the compression column are really about not taking p-delta effects from the bracing force into account when designing the column?

RE: BRBF Design

Quote (Deker)

Is it fair to say that your concerns regarding stiffness of the compression column are really about not taking p-delta effects from the bracing force into account when designing the column?

No, I don't think that it is fair. That said, I'm struggling to be certain of your intent because you're not using the big/little convention for P-delta that I'm used to.

1) P-Big Delta, resulting from joint translation. This is what I think you're referring to. It hasn't entered into my thinking. At least not yet. I'd think it not a big deal because:

a) Lateral shear translation should be relatively slight (more with seismic of course).

b) It doesn't mean much in terms of moment amplification unless you're column connections are fixed at the base and/or strut connections.

c) This would be amplifying moments about the plane of the brace anyhow. It's stiffness out of plane that matters.

2) P-Little Delta. This results from compression load being significant enough that any displacement of the column between joints would fail to generate the necessary restoring moment because of the P-delta effect. Imagine a simple span beam with a pin at the left, a roller at the right, and Pcr applied axially at the roller. That beam has no flexural stiffness. That's what I'm getting at.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: BRBF Design

Sorry, was referring to p-little delta. I think we're on the same page.

RE: BRBF Design

No sweat. In that case, I'd say that there really is no situation in which P-baby-delta effects from the bracing forces are not accounted for in our designs. It's baked into our column design methodology, even if it's just pure axial load and pin-pin.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: BRBF Design

My computer is scared of your .snag file type. Can you post a PDF or more conventional image file?

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: BRBF Design

BAGW...Saw this video and thought it might be helpful (Link). It illustrates how to apply the upcoming multi-tier braced frame provisions in AISC 341. The part of the presentation specific to BRBF starts around the 44 minute mark.

RE: BRBF Design

If we may, I'd like to go back to the gravity load question to make sure I'm tracking. Deker, the chevron example makes sense. We want to be sure the beam can handle the gravity load post brace buckling. However, if there were a case where the P-Delta (that's "big" delta) demands were large, say braced frames supported by transfer level with varying stiffness, would you consider this outside the requirement of AISC 341-10 F4.2 since it is more stability than pure vertical resistance?

RE: BRBF Design

Arghh!! I still can't download it BAGW. Might be a technical deficiency on my part.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: BRBF Design

Remove any spaces from the file name... engineering.com doesn't like spaces in file names.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources