含鋼板阻尼器構架耐震設計與試驗及分析研究

Seismic Design, Tests and Response Analysis of Steel Frame with Steel Panel Dampers

許仲翔(Chung-Hsiang Hsu)

指導教授 ： 蔡克銓

國立臺灣大學/工學院/土木工程學研究所/碩士(2016年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201600796

摘要

含鋼板阻尼器構架(SPD-MRF)為耐震間柱構架(Ductile Vierendeel Frame, DVF)的一種，在抗彎構架中設置鋼板阻尼器(SPD)能增加結構的側向勁度與強度。SPD為三段寬翼型構件，上下段腹板較厚為彈性連接段、中間為非彈性核心段，地震中核心段腹板剪力反覆降伏變形以消釋能量。本研究之目的在研發SPD容量設計法、SPD相接之邊界梁容量設計法，並探討SPD-MRF耐震分析與設計與耐震性能。
研究試體共四組，SPD全長皆為2.6米，方法為利用NCREE的MATS設備的子結構擬動態試驗與反覆載重試驗，試驗目的為探討所提SPD容量設計法之有效性、並探討核心段高寬比、長度與加勁單元配置形式對SPD韌性容量之影響，試驗結果顯示SPD核心段最大剪應變可來到0.11弧度，證實本研究所提之加勁單元設計方法可延緩挫屈，而SPD連接段在試體最大強度下仍保持彈性，證實所提設計方法有效。本研究也建置Abaqus與PISA3D模型來模擬SPD反應，並提出簡化單根SPD模型的PISA3D建置方法，確認上述三種分析方法均能準確模擬試體的反覆受力變形行為。
為探討SPD-MRF的耐震性能，本研究提出SPD與邊界梁容量設計法，設計一棟六層樓含SPD構架設計例，並建置構架短向單跨的Abaqus模型，先進行反覆側推分析，結果顯示屋頂側位移角為0.01弧度時，只有SPD產生剪力塑鉸；在屋頂側位移角為0.01到0.015弧度時，梁端與底層柱底逐漸產生塑鉸。分析結果證實SPD能作為構架中的保險絲，避免梁柱構件過早發生破壞，且SPD與梁接合區無彎矩或剪力塑鉸產生，証實所提邊界梁容量設計法有效，能使SPD-MRF具有預期的消能機制。另外，本研究另調整使用美國Oakland地區的加速度歷時，對六層設計例進行3種地震危害度共240組非線性動力歷時分析，由分析所得SPD最大反應作為耐震需求，與試驗結果比較證實本研究所提之SPD具備足夠的耐震容量。

關鍵字

鋼板阻尼器 ； 耐震間柱 ； 剪力降伏 ； 挫屈束制 ； 容量設計 ； 有限元素模型方析 ； PISA3D ； 非線性動力歷時分析 ； 反覆載重試驗 ； 子結構擬動態試驗

並列摘要

An steel panel damper (SPD) includes three wide-flange sections using different grades or thicknesses for the webs, namely the middle inelastic core (IC), and the top and bottom elastic joints (EJs) to be connected to the beams. A ductile vierendeel frame can be constructed by incorporating the SPDs into the moment resisting frame (SPD-MRF). This manner, the lateral stiffness, strength and energy dissipation capacity of the MRF can be enhanced. Under a severe earthquake, the two EJs in an SPD-MRF are designed to remain elastic while the IC could undergo large inelastic shear deformation thereby dissipate energy without the failure at the EJ-to-beam ends. The purposes of this study are not only to develop the capacity design procedures (CDPs) for the SPDs or the boundary beams connected to the SPDs, but also investigate the seismic design procedures and performance of a typical SPD-MRF subjected to earthquake ground accelerations of three different hazard levels. The tasks of this study also include investigating the effects of IC’s aspect ratio, height, and stiffener design on the seismic performance of SPDs.
In this study, four specimens of 2.6 meter tall are fabricated for substructure pseudo dynamic and cyclic loading tests using the MATS facility at NCREE. Tests confirm that the proposed stiffener design can effectively prevent the premature buckling of the IC web, and the maximum deformation of properly designed ICs can be 0.11 radian before fractures occurred at the IC web near the stiffeners. Tests also confirm that the proposed CDPs for the SPDs are effective to ensure the EJs to remain elastic while strain hardening factor of the IC reaches 1.5. Analytical studies confirm that cyclic response of SPDs can be accurately predicted by using Abaqus shell-element model, and the PISA3D models with either one or three beam elements to represent an SPD.
The Abaqus and PISA3D push-over analysis results of a 6-story example SPD-MRF show that when the roof drift reaches 0.01 radian, yielding is developed only in the SPDs’ ICs. When the roof drifts go from 0.01 to 0.015 radians, flexural yielding are gradually developed in the beam ends and the 1st story columns’ bottom ends. SPDs act like fuses to reduce the inelastic deformations of the beams and columns. The beam sections and the panel zones adjacent to the SPDs remain elastic as anticipated before the roof drift reaches 0.04 radian. This confirms the effectiveness of the CDPs proposed for the connecting beams and panel zones. PISA3D analytical studies confirm that the example SPD-MRF performs very well. Under a total of 240 ground motions of SLEs, DBEs and MCEs, the inelastic deformational demands imposed by any MCE on the ICs of the SPDs are substantially lower than the capacity witnessed in the test specimens.

並列關鍵字

steel panel damper ； stub column ； shear yielding ； buckling restraining ； capacity design ； finite element analysis ； pisa3d ； non-linear dynamic analysis ； cyclic loading test ； substructure pseudo dynamic test

參考文獻

1. AISC 341-10 (2010). “Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings.” American Insstitution of Steel Construction, Chicago.

2. AISC 360-10 (2010). “Specification of Structural Steel Building.” American Insstitution of Steel Construction, Chicago.

3. Brando, G., & De Matteis, G. (2014). “Design of low strength-high hardening metal multi-stiffened shear plates.” Engineering Structures,60, 2-10.

4. Chan, R. W., Albermani, F., & Williams, M. S. (2009). “Evaluation of yielding shear panel device for passive energy dissipation.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research,65(2), 260-268.

5. Chen, Z., Ge, H., & Usami, T. (2006). “Hysteretic model of stiffened shear panel dampers.” Journal of structural engineering,132(3), 478-483.