Figure 1
Details of the proposed beam to column connection equipped with an SSD, as proposed by (Oh et al., 2009Oh, S.H., Kim, Y.J., and Ryu, H.S., (2009). Seismic performance of steel structures with slit dampers. Engineering Structures, 31(9), pp. 1997-2008.).
Figure 2
Idealization of the proposed SSD (Oh et al., 2009Oh, S.H., Kim, Y.J., and Ryu, H.S., (2009). Seismic performance of steel structures with slit dampers. Engineering Structures, 31(9), pp. 1997-2008.).
Figure 3
Analytic model of the connection, center of rotation, and shear-bending axes of the evaluated system (Oh et al., 2009Oh, S.H., Kim, Y.J., and Ryu, H.S., (2009). Seismic performance of steel structures with slit dampers. Engineering Structures, 31(9), pp. 1997-2008.)
Figure 4
Details, simplifications, and deformation scheme of split-T seat (Oh et al., 2009Oh, S.H., Kim, Y.J., and Ryu, H.S., (2009). Seismic performance of steel structures with slit dampers. Engineering Structures, 31(9), pp. 1997-2008.).
Figure 5
Setup of the experimental model (Oh et al., 2009Oh, S.H., Kim, Y.J., and Ryu, H.S., (2009). Seismic performance of steel structures with slit dampers. Engineering Structures, 31(9), pp. 1997-2008.).
Figure 6
Details of connections, cross-sectional characteristics, and model geometry (Oh et al., 2009Oh, S.H., Kim, Y.J., and Ryu, H.S., (2009). Seismic performance of steel structures with slit dampers. Engineering Structures, 31(9), pp. 1997-2008.).
Figure 7
Modeling scheme for the validation model based on multiples of the yield rotation and different stages of cyclic loading.
Figure 8
Loading scheme of the validation model based on the ultimate displacement ratio and scaled virtual time.
Figure 9
Geometry and meshing scheme of the numerical model developed in the ABAQUS.
Figure 10
A comparison between hysteresis curves developed upon experimental investigations (Oh et al., 2009Oh, S.H., Kim, Y.J., and Ryu, H.S., (2009). Seismic performance of steel structures with slit dampers. Engineering Structures, 31(9), pp. 1997-2008.) and the numerical model built in the ABAQUS.
Figure 11
Comparison between plastic strain of the validation numerical model and plastic deformation of the experimental model.
Figure 12
Contours of plastic strain and strain for the validation model in the final stage of loading.
Figure 13
Schematic view of the connection of the beam flange to the connection plate and column for different samples with different aspect ratios: (a) BA_bh = 0.52, (b) BA_bh = 0.57, (c) BA_bh = 0.62, and (d) BA_bh = 0.67.
Figure 14
Rotation-bending moment hysteresis curve considering the rotation hinge at the top corner of the beam-column connection plate in models of different aspect ratios.
Figure 15
(a) Load – displacement envelop curve and (b) plot of cumulative energy of beam – column connection in the studied samples with different aspect ratios.
Figure 16
A normal-to-loading-plane perspective view to contours of plastic strain for the studied samples with different aspect ratios.
Figure 17
Contours of plastic strain in the split-T seat, top separator plate, and beam-column SSD for the studied samples with different aspect ratios.
Figure 18
A normal-to-loading-plane perspective view to contours of stress for the studied samples with different aspect ratios.
Figure 14
Rotation-bending moment hysteresis curve considering the rotation hinge at the top corner of the beam-column connection plate in models of different aspect ratios.
Figure 15
(a) Load – displacement envelop curve and (b) plot of cumulative energy of beam – column connection in the studied samples with different aspect ratios.
Figure 16
A normal-to-loading-plane perspective view to contours of plastic strain for the studied samples with different aspect ratios.
Figure 17
Contours of plastic strain in the split-T seat, top separator plate, and beam-column SSD for the studied samples with different aspect ratios.
Figure 18
A normal-to-loading-plane perspective view to contours of stress for the studied samples with different aspect ratios.
Figure 19
Lateral view of the numerical models with different SSD axis to column face distance ratios.
Figure 20
Rotation-bending moment hysteresis curve considering the rotation hinge at the top corner of the beam-column connection plate in models of different SSD axis to column face distance ratios.
Figure 21
(a) Load – displacement envelop curve and (b) plot of cumulative energy of beam – column connection in the studied samples with different SSD axis to column face distance ratios.
Figure 22
A normal-to-loading-plane perspective view to contours of plastic strain for the studied samples with different SSD axis to column face distance ratios.
Figure 23
A normal-to-loading-plane perspective view to contours of stress for the studied samples with different SSD axis to column face distance ratios.
Figure 20
Rotation-bending moment hysteresis curve considering the rotation hinge at the top corner of the beam-column connection plate in models of different SSD axis to column face distance ratios.
Figure 21
(a) Load – displacement envelop curve and (b) plot of cumulative energy of beam – column connection in the studied samples with different SSD axis to column face distance ratios.
Figure 22
A normal-to-loading-plane perspective view to contours of plastic strain for the studied samples with different SSD axis to column face distance ratios.
Figure 23
A normal-to-loading-plane perspective view to contours of stress for the studied samples with different SSD axis to column face distance ratios.
Figure 24
Rotation-bending moment hysteresis curve considering the rotation hinge at the top corner of the beam-column connection plate in models of different damper compactness ratios.
Figure 25
(a) Load – displacement envelop curve and (b) plot of cumulative energy of beam – column connection in the studied samples with different damper compactness ratios.
Figure 26
A normal-to-loading-plane perspective view to contours of plastic strain for the studied samples with different compactness ratios.
Figure 27
Contours of plastic strain of the SSD for the studied samples with different compactness ratios.
Figure 28
A normal-to-loading-plane perspective view to contours of stress for the studied samples with different damper compactness ratios.
Figure 29
Rotation-bending moment hysteresis curve considering the rotation hinge at the top corner of the beam-column connection plate in models of different damper to beam flange thickness ratios.
Figure 30
(a) Load – displacement envelop curve and (b) plot of cumulative energy of beam – column connection in the studied samples with different damper to beam flange thickness ratios.
Figure 31
A normal-to-loading-plane perspective view to contours of plastic strain for the studied samples with different damper to beam flange thickness ratios.
Figure 32
Contours of plastic strain of the beam, connection plates, and SSD from the column face for the studied samples with different damper to beam flange thickness ratios.
Figure 33
A normal-to-loading-plane perspective view to contours of stress for the studied samples with different damper to beam flange thickness ratios.
Figure 34
Variations of beam rotation against changes in the parameters studied in this work: (a) aspect ratio, (b) distance ratio, (c) compactness ratio, and (d) thickness ratio.
Figure 35
Variations of dissipated energy against changes in the parameters studied in this work: (a) aspect ratio, (b) distance ratio, (c) compactness ratio, and (d) thickness ratio.
Table 1
Cross-sectional characteristics of the beam and column used in the numerical and experimental models (Oh et al., 2009Oh, S.H., Kim, Y.J., and Ryu, H.S., (2009). Seismic performance of steel structures with slit dampers. Engineering Structures, 31(9), pp. 1997-2008.).
Table 2
Cross-sectional properties of the base seat and top split-T separator (Oh et al., 2009Oh, S.H., Kim, Y.J., and Ryu, H.S., (2009). Seismic performance of steel structures with slit dampers. Engineering Structures, 31(9), pp. 1997-2008.).
Table 3
Characteristics of the SSD (Oh et al., 2009Oh, S.H., Kim, Y.J., and Ryu, H.S., (2009). Seismic performance of steel structures with slit dampers. Engineering Structures, 31(9), pp. 1997-2008.).
Table 4
Mechanical properties of the materials used in the validation phase.
Table 5
Characteristics of the validation model.
Table 6
characteristics of the numerical models studied in this research.
Table 7
Geometrical properties, displacement at yield, and yield and ultimate load-bearing capacities of the SSD.
Table 8
Mechanical and stiffness properties of separate components of the connection and ultimate stiffness of the connection (to be continued).
Table 9
Yield and ultimate shear and bending load-bearing capacities of the connection and bending moment-induced rotation at yield at the plastic hinge of the top separator of the beam-column connection.
Table 10
maximum values of plastic strain and stress in different numerical models.