Comparing Performance of Strongback and BRB Braced Frames Under Seismic Sequence

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
M. R. Kheime 1
G. Ghodrati Amiri 1
E. Darvishan 2
1 School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
2 Civil Engineering Department, Roudehen Branch, Islamic Azad University, Roudehen, Iran
Abstract
One of the most popular lateral load resisting systems is the concentric bracing. However, despite the unique advantages of the system, it has irregular and unstable hysteresis cycles because of differences in compressive and tensile strength. Hence, many studies are devoted to improve these braces to achieve an ideal symmetric elastoplastic behavior which has resulted in construction of Buckling-Restrained Braces (BRB). BRBs, although have a much better seismic performance than ordinary bracing, have a main disadvantage (similar to conventional bracing) of producing large nonlinear displacements due to their low stiffness, and consequently they have potential to form soft story. Recently, Strongback Bracing System (SBS), which is a combination of a zip system and an elastic truss system, has been introduced. SBS actually includes two types of features: a rigid elastic truss to tie story drifts over the height of the structure, and a conventional bracing system to dissipate energy. Therefore, this system can prevent or delay probability of soft story by controlling the distribution of floor displacements and the nonlinear demand of the structure. However, the studies conducted on this system are limited, and to the best of the author’s knowledge performance of this system with BRB configuration under seismic sequences is not yet investigated. In this paper, seismic performance of the SBS system is investigated and compared with the BRB one. First, behavior of these systems are studied under main shock. Next, seismic sequences are applied on the structures to better understand the behavior of SBS frames compared to BRB. For this purpose, three 4- 8- and 12-story frames were designed with two SBS and BRB systems. BRB elements were used as inelastic braces of SBS system. Nonlinear static analysis was conducted to evaluate the seismic parameters of the structures such as response modification factor and overstrength factor. Also, nonlinear time-history analysis was performed to find maximum and residual response of the structures. In the next step, a fragility analysis was conducted using IDA to estimate performance of the structures under mainshock and seismic sequence for different performance levels. 3 performance levels were selected for SBS and 4 performance levels for BRB which show the elastic to global collapse of the structures. The results of static analysis showed that the SBS system has a uniform distribution of displacement in the height of the structure, which prevents the formation of soft story. In all analyses, SBS showed a superior performance, especially in 4 story structure. Also, SBS frames showed higher response modification and overstrength factors. Results of dynamic analysis showed that the 4-story SBS structure was much less vulnerable to seismic sequences compared to the BRB one. However, the performance of SBS system decreases with increase in the height of the structures, such that 12-story frame experienced large deformations and collapsed under lower seismic demands than BRB frame. This was due to buckling of some elements in rigid truss which led to concentration of demands in these elements. Therefore, more stringent provisions are needed for design of taller structures with SBS system.

Keywords

Subjects

[1] Khatib, I.F., Mahin, S.A. and Pister, K.S. 1988 Seismic behavior of concentrically braced steel frames. Berkeley, CA, USA, UCB/EERC-88/01. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California.
[2] Tremblay R. 2003 Achieving a Stable Inelastic Seismic Stability of Concentrically Braced Steel Frames. Engineering Journal. AISC, 40(2), 111-129, 2003.
[3] Foutch D. A., Goel S. C., and Roeder C. W. 1987 Seismic testing of full-scale steel building—Part I. Journal of Structural Engineering, 113(11), 211.
[4] Whittaker A. S. 1990 An experimental study of the behavior of dual steel systems, Report No. UCB/EERC-88/14 University of California, Berkeley.
[5] Chen C.-H. 2010 Performance-based seismic demand assessment of concentrically braced steel frame buildings. Doctoral dissertation, UC Berkeley, 2010.
[6] MacRae G. A., Kimura Y., & Roeder C. 2004 Effect of column stiffness on braced frame seismic behavior. Journal of Structural Engineering, 130(3) 381-391.
[7] Ji X., Kato M., Wang T., Hitaka T., and Nakashima M. 2009 Effect of gravity columns on mitigation of drift concentration for braced frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 65(12), 2148-2156.
[8] Yang T. Y. 2006 Performance evaluation of innovative steel braced frames, Pacific Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
[9] Simpson, B. G., & Mahin, S. A. 2017 Experimental and numerical investigation of strong back braced frame system to mitigate weak story behavior. Journal of Structural Engineering, 144(2), 04017211.
[10] Laghi, V., Palermo, M., Gasparini, G., & Trombetti, T. 2017 Strong-back system coupled with framed structure to control the building seismic response. Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering, 7(2), 1000274.
[11] Palermo, M., Laghi, V., Gasparini, G., & Trombetti, T. (2018). Coupled response of frame structures connected to a strongback. Journal of Structural Engineering, 144(9), 04018148.
[12] Talley P. C. 2018 Capacity design methods for strongback braced frames. MSc Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
[13] Toorani A., Gholhaki M., & Vahdani R. 2020. The investigation into the effect of consecutive earthquakes, on the strongback bracing system. Structures, 24, 477-488.
[14] Lai, J. W., & Mahin, S. A. 2014 strong back system: A way to reduce damage concentration in steel-braced frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 141(9), 04014223.
[15] Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. 2006 Iranian National Building Code (Part 6). Minimum Building Loads.
[16] BHRC, B. Housing Research Center. 2005. Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings, Standard No, 2800.
[17] ASCE, American Society of Civil Engineers. 2013 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-10). American Society of Civil Engineers.
[18] AISC, A. 2010 AISC 341-10. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings”. Chicago (IL): American Institute of Steel Construction.
[19] Mazzoni S., McKenna F., Scott M. H., & Fenves G. L. 2006. OpenSees command language manual. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center, 264.
[20] Ruiz-García J. & Negrete-Manriquez J. C. 2011 Evaluation of drift demands in existing steel frames under as-recorded far-field and near-fault mainshock–aftershock seismic sequences. Engineering Structures, 33(2), 621-634.
[21] FEMA, 2000 Commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA-356, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
[22] Erochko J., Christopoulos C., Tremblay R., & Choi H. 2010 Residual drift response of SMRFs and BRB frames in steel buildings designed according to ASCE 7-05. Journal of Structural Engineering, 13(5). 589-599.
Modares Civil Engineering journal
Volume 21, Issue 2
May and June 2021
Pages 105-117