Issue 66

A. J. Abdulridha, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 66 (2023) 273-296; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.66.17

O UTLINE OF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

T

his work used the experimental study published by Alptug and Mevlut [49] to calibrate numerical findings and confirm their applicability; a short overview is given below. In Fig. 7, Alptug and Mevlut [49] show the features of a steel frame specimen indicative of their experimental test. Concentration was measured in single-bay, two-story, steel-braced buildings. The static lateral loading (pushover analysis) method was applied to an X-braced steel frame and specimens with a 100x100x3 mm cross-section. High-strength shafts were placed into the holes in the solid laboratory slab and then hammered into the ground to anchor the specimen firmly. Tab. 4 displays the profiles in a cross-section.

Figure 7: Details of steel frame specimen (a) experimental [49] and (b) ETABS.

Square section (mm) 100×100×3

Ax (mm 2 ) 1140

Ix (mm 4 )

Iy (mm 4 )

ix (mm) 39.4

iy (mm) 39.4

W elx (mm 3 ) 35400

W ely (mm 3 ) 35400

W plx (mm 3 ) 41200

W ply (mm 3 ) 41200

1.77*106 1.77*106

Table 4: Profile properties [49]

C ONCLUSIONS AND RESULTS - C ERTIFICATION RESULTS

A

comparison of numerical and experimental data [49] is shown in Fig. 8. This graph shows how well the ETABS model fits with the experimental data. The ETABS to experimental axial compressive strength ratio (P Num . / P Exp ) and the maximum longitudinal displacement ( Δ Num / Δ Exp ) fall between 1.03 and 1.04. Specimens exposed to stress testing are shown with experimental and numerical damage in Fig.9. The numerical technique correctly predicts the test frame's load-bearing capabilities, maximum displacement, and failure mechanism. Given that the samples differ by less than 10%. This finding is consistent with Harba and Abdulridha [50] and Risan et al. [51].

Figure 8: The experimental [49] and ETABS lateral load –displacement curves.

280