Seismic Evaluation of Steel Moment Concentric Diagonal Bracing Frames Equipped with Shape Memory Alloys

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
M. Bagheri 1
A. Vedad 2
M. Akbari 3
1 Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Birjand University of Technology, Birjand, Iran
2 Civil Engineering Department, Besat Institute of Higher Education, Kerman, Iran
3 Civil Engineering Department, Hormozan Institute of Higher Education, Birjand, Iran.
Abstract
In addition to the stiffness, strength, and ductility, that are the main requirements of earthquake-resistant buildings, the necessity of reversibility is also essential, and one of the ways to meet this demand is to use materials with high elasticity and low residual strain, such as shape memory alloys (SMAs). The purpose of this study is to determine the seismic fragility curve of steel moment eccentric diagonal bracing frames in 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 20-story structures using HAZUS guidelines using incremental dynamic analysis and determining the amount of reduction in the residual displacement of structures with the SMA performing time history dynamic analysis. Survey the fragility curves of the partial failure level of alloyed structures in different stories, it was concluded that the rate of damage reduction for 3 and 6 stories structures was 23 and 18% and for structures with more stories, it was limited to 4 to 9%. At the level of average failure, the same reduction between structures with different classes using this type of alloy has been seen by an average of 30%. On the other, the reduction was about 40% in the area of ​​extensive damage for short and medium-sized structures, while this reduction was limited to 15% for structures of 12 to 20 stories. Besides, in the level of general failure, the use of SMA has not had much effect in reducing damage, especially in high-rise structures. On the other hand, the reduction in residual displacement for high-rise structures with alloys has been between 80 and 95% of the residual displacement of structures without alloys. Therefore, in terms of reducing damage at different levels, the presence of shaped memory alloy in short-rise structures is more effective than high-rise structures. In terms of reversibility, the use of these materials can be a positive point in reducing damage due to residual displacement in operating time for high-rise buildings.

Keywords

Subjects

1. Song G., Ma N.A. & Li H.N. 2006 Applications of shape memory alloys in civil structures. Engineering Structures, 28, 1266–1274.
2. Izadi M.R., Ghafoori E., Shahverdi M., Motavalli M. & Maalek S. 2018 Development of an iron-based shape memory alloy (Fe-SMA) strengthening system for steel plates. Engineering Structures, 174, 433–446.
3. Silwal B., Huang Q., Ozbulut O.E. & Dyanati, M. 2018 Comparative seismic fragility estimates of steel moment frame buildings with or without superelastic viscous dampers. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 1(16).
4. Hu J.W. 2014 Seismic analysis and evaluation of several recentering braced frame structures. Journal Mechanical Engineering Science, 228(5), 781-798.
5. Motahari S.A., Ghassemieh M. & Abolmaali S.A. 2007 Implementation of shape memory alloy dampers for passive control of structures subjected to seismic excitations. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 63(12), 1570–1579.
6. Babaei S. & Zarfam P. 2019 Optimization of shape memory alloy braces for concentrically braced steel braced frames. Open Engineering, 9(1), 697–708.
7. Ghassemieh M. & Kargarmoakhar R. 2013 Response modification factor of steel frames utilizing shape memory alloys. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 24(10), 1213-1225.
8. Mahmoudi M., Montazeri S. & Sadr Abad M.J. 2018 Seismic performance of steel X-knee-braced frames equipped with shape memory alloy bars. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 147, 171-186.
9. Shi F., Saygili G. & Ozbulut O.E. 2018 Probabilistic seismic performance evaluation of SMA braced steel frames considering SMA brace failure. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16, 5937–5962.
10. Moradi S. & Alam M.S. 2014 Incremental dynamic analysis of shape memory alloy braced steel frames. Applied Mechanics and Materials,680, 263-266.
11. Fang C., Yam M.C.H., Lam A.C. & Zhang Y. 2015 Feasibility study of shape memory alloy ring spring systems for self-centering seismic resisting devices. Smart Materials and Structures, 24, 075024.
12. Vafaei D. & Eskandari R. 2016 Seismic performance of steel mega braced frames equipped with shape-memory alloy braces under near-fault earthquakes. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 25(1), 3–21.
13. Qiu C.X. & Zhu S. 2017 Performance-based seismic design of self-centering steel frames with SMA-based braces. Engineering Structures, 130, 67–82.
14. Abou-Elfath H. 2017 Evaluating the ductility characteristics of self-centering buckling-restrained shape memory alloy braces. Smart Materials and Structures, 26(5), 055020.
15. Zareie S., Mirzai M., Shahria N.A. & Rudolf S.J. 2017 A dynamic analysis of a novel shape memory alloy-based bracing system. Conference Paper: Vancouver, Canada.
16. Dong H., Du X. and Han Q. 2019 Seismic responses of steel frame structures with self-centering energy dissipation braced on shape memory alloy cables. Advances in Structural Engineering, 22(9).
17. Speicher M.S., DesRoches D. & Leon R.T. 2017 Investigation of an articulated quadrilateral bracing system utilizing shape memory alloys. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 130: 65–78.
18. Gholhaki M. khosravikhor A. & Rezayfar O. 2018 Study effect of Ni-Ti shape memory alloy on ductility of steel plate shear walls, Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering, Iran.(In Persian)
19. Kheyroddin A. Ghohaki M. & Pachideh Gh. 2018 Seismic elevation of reinforced concrete moment frames retrofitted with steel braces using IDA and pushover method in the near-fault field, Journal of Rehabilitation in Civil Engineering, 7(10), 159-173.
20. Pachideh Gh. Ghohaki M. & Saedi Daryan A. 2019 Analyzing the damage index of steel plate shear walls using pushover analysis, Institution of Structural Engineers, 20, 437-451.
21. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2014 HAZUS-MH 2.1 Technical Manual: Earthquake Model. Washington, DC: FEM.
22. Habibullah A. 1979 ETABS- Three dimensional analysis of building systems. Computers and Structures Inc, Berkeley, California.
23. Seismosoft. 2016 SeismoStruct 2016 – A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures, available from http://www.seismosoft.com.
24. Menegotto M. Pinto P.E. 1973 Method of analysis for cyclically loaded R.C. plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behaviour of elements under combined normal force and bending. Symposium on the Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well Defined Repeated Loads, International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, 15-2
25. No, S. 2800 Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings, fourth Revision. 2005. Building and Housing Research Center, Iran.
26. FEMA. Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures. FEMA 440. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
Modares Civil Engineering journal
Volume 20, Issue 6
November and December 2020
Pages 21-32