2nd Advanced Engineering Days (AED) – 16 March 2022 – Mersin, Türkiye
Advanced Engineering Days
aed.mersin.edu.tr
Prevention of torsional irregularity in steel structures via brace members
Sadrettin Sancıoğlu*1 , Havva Betül Vural 1 , Sena Selen 1 , Serdar Çarbaş 2 , Abdulkerim
İlgün 1
[email protected];
[email protected]2Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Civil Engineering Department, Karaman, Turkey,
[email protected] Cite this study: Sancıoğlu, S., Vural, H. B., Selen, S., Çarbaş, S. & İlgün, A. (2022). Prevention of torsional
irregularity in steel structures via brace members. 2nd Advanced Engineering Days, 72-75
Keywords Abstract
Steel Steel structures can be designed using moment-resisting frame systems or braced frame
Brace systems. Torsional irregularities can occur in non-symmetrical structures designed with
SCBF moment-resisting steel frame systems. These torsional irregularities can be eliminated
SMF by adding braces to moment-resisting steel frame systems. In this study, X-type braces
Code were added to the moment-resisting steel frame system with A1 torsional irregularity
and torsional irregularity was prevented.
Introduction
The use of steel in high-rise buildings and industrial structures has been increasing recently with the
development of construction technology. Especially, having a high modulus of elasticity makes it superior to other
structural materials. Steel structures show ductile behaviour under horizontal loads such as winds and
earthquakes. In addition, they have high energy absorption capacity [1], [2]. Therefore, steel structures are mostly
preferred especially in earthquake zones.
Moreover, steel structures can be designed as special moment-resisting framed systems (SMF), special
concentrically braced framed systems (SCBF), and eccentrically braced framed systems (EBF) [3]. Steel braced
frame systems are increased in horizontal load carrying capacity, however restrict the lateral displacement
considerably. The cross-section, direction, geometry and location of the used brace member enormously affect the
behavior of the structure [4].
In non-symmetrical structure designed as SMF can be occured torsional irregularity. In the design of the steel
structures in our country, the torsional irregularity of the non-symmetrical structures must be checked according
to the Turkish Building Earthquake Code-2018 (TBEC-2018). This irregularity can be avoided by adding
concentrically and eccentrically steel braces to the structure designed as SMF. Besides, torsional irregularity can
be occured not only in non-symmetrical structures designed as SMF, but also symmetrical structures because of
the strength differences and location of the using braces [5].
In this study, a five-storey non-symmetrical steel structure with A1 type torsional irregularity according to
TBEC-2018 was examined. The principle aim of the study is to prevent torsional irregularity by adding X-type
concentrically steel braces to this structure.
72
2nd Advanced Engineering Days (AED) – 16 March 2022 – Mersin, Türkiye
Material and Method
In this study, five-storey non-symmetrical steel frame structure with 6 m span was examined. Each floor height
of the structure was equal and 4.5 m. The structure coordinates was 37.97986°-32.593169° and soil class is ZD.
Structural analysis was performed via SAP2000 in order to acquire structural weight and horizontal
displacements. According to structural analyses results, cross-section of the beams and columns was determined.
Then, concentrically steel braces were added to the structure and the analysis were repeated in order to indicate
the effect of steel braces. The structure was designed as to be utilized be used as a industrial building. The view of
the examined structure are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Examined Structure (3D and x-y views)
In the structural analyses, the snow and wind load values were implemented from the Turkish Standards (TS).
The calculation details of snow load was taken from Effects on Structures-Part 1-3 (TS EN 1991-1-3) and the wind
73
2nd Advanced Engineering Days (AED) – 16 March 2022 – Mersin, Türkiye
load was taken from Effects on Structures-Part 1-4 (TS EN 1991- 1-4). Vertical loads (dead load, roof live load, live
load, snow load) acted on the structure were defined in the direction of gravity in SAP2000 modelling. The vertical
load values calculated are given in Table 1. Wind loads were affected on both in SAP2000. The terrain category,
orographic coefficient, turbulence coefficient, structural coefficient and air density values for the mentioned
coordinates through the rigid diaphragms were specified for calculation of the wind loads.
Table 1. Vertical load values
Roof Slab (kN/m2)
G (dead load) 4
Qr (roof live load) 2
S (snow load) 1,155
Slab (kN/m2)
G (dead load) 10
Q (live load) 5
Horizontal and vertical earthquake effects were also considered in the structural analysis. The earthquake
parameters for the mentioned coordinates were taken from Turkey Earthquake Hazard Maps Interactive Web
Application. The information taken was given in Table 2 for Earthquake Ground Motion Levels 2 and 3 (EGML-2,
EGML-3).
Table 2. Earthquake parameters
Soil PGA PGV T T T
Earthquake Ground Motion Levels S S S S
A B L
Class [g] [cm/sn] (sn) (sn) (sn)
S 1 DS D1
EGML-2 ZD 0,294 0,070 0,127 6,444 0,073 0,365 6 0,460 0,168
EGML-3 ZD 0,095 0,026 0,042 2,392 0,082 0,411 6 0,152 0,062
The vertical earthquake effect was calculated with the Equation 1 given below in accordance with TBEC-2018
4.4.3.2 and the dead load was added as G.
𝐸𝑑 (𝑍) ≈ (2⁄3)𝑆𝐷𝑆 𝐺 (1)
The load combinations used in the structural analyses were determined according to Design, Calculation and
Constructional Principles of Steel Structures-2018 (DCCPSS-2018) Section 5.3.1 Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LRFD) and TBEC-2018 Section 4.4.4. Wind (W) loads were taken into account on both x- and y- directions,
while earthquake loads (E) were taken into account on the x- y- and z- directions. In addition, according to TBEC-
2018 4.4.4.2 (a), factorized 1.2G is used instead of G in TBEC-2018 Equation 4.11. The load combinations (C) to be
used in the examined structure were listed below.
C1 : 1.4G C9 : 1.2G+1.6Qr +0.8Wy C17 : 1.2G+1.0Q+0.2S+1.0Ey
C2 : 1.2G+1.6Qr C10 : 1.2G+1.6S+0.8Wx C18 : 0.9G+1.6Wx
C3 : 1.2G+1.6S C11 : 1.2G+1.6S+0.8Wy C19 : 0.9G+1.6Wy
C4 : 1.2G+1.6Q+0.5Qr C12 : 1.2G+1.0Q+0.5Qr+1.6Wx C20 : 0.9G+1.0Ex
C5 : 1.2G+1.6Q+0.5S C13 : 1.2G+1.0Q+0.5Qr+1.6Wy C21 : 0.9G+1.0Ey
C6 : 1.2G+1.6Qr+1.0Q C14 : 1.2G+1.0Q+0.5S+1.6Wx C22 : 1.2G+1.0Q+0.2S+1.0Ex+0.3Ey
C7 : 1.2G+1.6S+1.0Q C15 : 1.2G+1.0Q+0.5S+1.6Wy C23 : 1.2G+1.0Q+0.2S+0.3Ex+1.0Ey
C8 : 1.2G+1.6Qr +0.8Wx C16 : 1.2G+1.0Q+0.2S+1.0Ex
The steel class of the columns, beams, secondary-beams and braces used in the structures had been considered
as S275. The cross-sections of columns and braces were selected among HEB profiles and the cross-sections of
beams and secondary-beams were selected among IPE profiles. According to TBEC-2018 Table 4.1 C11, the
structural system behaviour coefficient R=8 and the overstrength coefficient D=3 were selected for the SMF.
Additionally, according to Table 4.1 C15, R=6 and D=2.5 were selected for the SCBF.
Results
At the end of the conducted structural analyses, according to DCCPSS-2018 and TBEC-2018, the minimum
cross-sections of the structure were determined. The effective relative storey displacement in both directions (x-,
y-) of the two structural models were checked according to TBEC-2018 Equation 4.34b and with recpect to the
most dominant load combinations. Additionally, the torsional irregularities were investigated and they were
checked according to TBEC-2018 Section 3.6 (load combinations C22-C23). The final results obtained from
SAP2000 analyses were given in Table 3-4-5-6.
74
2nd Advanced Engineering Days (AED) – 16 March 2022 – Mersin, Türkiye
Table 3. Relative storey displacement (x- direction) Table 4. Relative storey displacement (y- direction)
∆𝒊 (𝒙) (mm)
∆𝒊 (𝒙) (mm)
Height (mm)
Height (mm)
𝝀𝒊 ≤ 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟖
𝝀𝒊 ≤ 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟖
𝒖𝒊 (𝒙) (mm)
𝒖𝒊 (𝒙) (mm)
∆𝒊 (𝒙) (mm)
∆𝒊 (𝒙) (mm)
𝜹𝒊 (𝒙)
𝜹𝒊 (𝒙)
Frame
Frame
𝒉𝒊
𝒉𝒊
Floor
Floor
𝝀𝒊 (𝒙)
𝝀𝒊 (𝒙)
𝑹
𝑹
𝑰
𝑰
𝜹𝒊 (𝒙) =
𝜹𝒊 (𝒙) =
1 4500 6,18 6,18 49,46 0,0040 ✓ 1 4500 42,41 42,41 339,306 0,0278 X
2 4500 27,94 21,76 174,08 0,0142 X 2 4500 174,59 132,18 1057,45 0,0867 X
SMF
SMF
3 4500 64,43 36,49 291,94 0,0239 X 3 4500 380,24 205,65 1645,18 0,1349 X
4 4500 109,33 44,89 359,13 0,0294 X 4 4500 624,68 244,44 1955,48 0,1603 X
5 4500 158,47 49,15 393,17 0,0322 X 5 4500 887,52 262,84 2102,74 0,1724 X
1 4500 0,96 0,96 7,65 0,0006 ✓ 1 4500 3,44 3,44 27,49 0,0023 ✓
2 4500 2,68 1,73 13,81 0,0011 ✓ 2 4500 8,59 5,15 41,19 0,0034 ✓
SCBF
SCBF
3 4500 4,89 2,21 17,64 0,0014 ✓ 3 4500 14,44 5,85 46,83 0,0038 ✓
4 4500 7,44 2,56 20,45 0,0017 ✓ 4 4500 20,61 6,18 49,40 0,0041 ✓
5 4500 9,97 2,53 20,21 0,0017 ✓ 5 4500 26,28 5,66 45,29 0,0037 ✓
Table 5. Torsional irregularities (x- direction) Table 6. Torsional irregularities (y- direction)
𝜼𝒃𝒊 (𝒙) = (∆𝒊 (𝒙) )𝒎𝒂𝒙
𝜼𝒃𝒊 (𝒚) = (∆𝒊 (𝒚) )𝒎𝒂𝒙
(∆𝒊 (𝒙) )𝒎𝒂𝒙 (mm)
(∆𝒊 (𝒚) )𝒎𝒂𝒙 (mm)
(∆𝒊 (𝒙) )𝒎𝒊𝒏 (mm)
(∆𝒊 (𝒚) )𝒎𝒊𝒏 (mm)
(∆𝒊 (𝒙) )𝒐𝒓𝒕 (mm)
(∆𝒊 (𝒚) )𝒐𝒓𝒕 (mm)
Height (mm)
Height (mm)
𝜼𝒃𝒊 (𝒙) > 𝟏, 𝟐
𝜼𝒃𝒊 (𝒚) > 𝟏, 𝟐
Frame
Frame
Floor
Floor
/(∆𝒊 (𝒙) )𝒐𝒓𝒕
/(∆𝒊 (𝒚) )𝒐𝒓𝒕
5 4500 18,6 3,30 10,95 1,70 X 5 4500 52,70 11,40 32,05 1,64 X
4 4500 13,4 3,20 8,30 1,61 X 4 4500 36,30 9,10 22,70 1,60 X
SMF
SMF
3 4500 8,50 2,80 5,65 1,50 X 3 4500 21,50 6,60 14,05 1,53 X
2 4500 4,20 1,20 2,70 1,56 X 2 4500 9,50 3,80 6,65 1,43 X
1 4500 1,10 0,70 0,90 1,22 X 1 4500 2,20 1,10 1,65 1,33 X
5 4500 1,30 1,00 5,65 0,23 ✓ 5 4500 12,10 11,60 11,85 1,02 ✓
4 4500 9,50 7,40 8,45 1,12 ✓ 4 4500 9,20 8,70 8,95 1,03 ✓
SCBF
SCBF
3 4500 6,10 4,90 5,50 1,11 ✓ 3 4500 6,20 5,70 5,95 1,04 ✓
2 4500 3,30 2,70 3,00 1,10 ✓ 2 4500 3,50 3,10 3,30 1,06 ✓
1 4500 1,10 1,00 1,05 1,05 ✓ 1 4500 1,30 1,10 1,20 1,08 ✓
From these obtained results, the structure designed as SMF does not satisfy the relative storey displacement
condition in both directions. Besides, while the horizontal displacement of the structure designed as SMF was
approximately 158 mm in the x-direction, it decreased approximately 10 mm in the structure model designed as
SCBF with SCBF. Likewise, it decreased from about 887 mm to about 26 mm in the y-direction. The structures
designed as SMF and SCBF were examined in terms of the A1 torsional irregularities. It was shown that the
structure designed as SMF did not provide the condition of torsional irregularities, while the structure designed
as SCBF satisfied it. Accordingly, the torsional irregularities can be eliminated by adding braces to the non-
symmetrical structures designed as SMF.
References
[1] Z. Ay, İ. D. Çelik, & A. Kimilli, (2010). Çaprazlı Çelik Çerçevelerin Sismik Performansı Üzerine Bazı
Değerlendirmeler,” Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilim. Enstitüsü Derg., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 7–17,
[2] S. Sancıoğlu & S. Çarbaş, (2021). Merkezi Çelik Çaprazların Bir Çelik Yapı Üzerinde İncelenmesi,” in 1st
International Conference on Applied Engineering and Natural Sciences, 2021, no. November, pp. 557–565.
[3] M. B. Bozkurt & B. Serin, (2021). “DBYBHY-2007 ve TBDY-2018 Esas Alınarak Boyutlandırılan MÇÇÇ’lerin
Deprem Performanslarının Karşılaştırılması,” Tek. Dergi, 10441–10476.
[4] S. Bayram, B., Sancıoğlu, S., Çarbaş, (2019). “Çelik Bir Yapıda Dışmerkez Diyagonal Çaprazların Etkisi,”
Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Mühendislik ve Doğa Bilim. Dergisi, (1), 128–145.
[5] B. Akşar, B. Akbaş, E. Ş. Kaya, & F. Çakır, (2018). “Relative story displacements and torsional effects caused
by strength variations in concentrically braced frames,” J. Fac. Eng. Archit. Gazi Universitesi, 33(1),13–30,
75
