Seismic Performance of Buckling Restrained Braced Frames with Shape Memory Alloy Subjected to Mainshock-Aftershock Near-Fault Ground Motion

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
S. V. Hashemi 1
M. Pouraminian 2
A. Sadeghi 3
S. Pourbakhshian 2
1 PhD Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, Sistan and Baluchestan University, Zahedan, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Ramsar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ramsar, Iran
3 PhD Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran
Abstract
Buckling-restrained braced (BRB) frames are steadily replacing concentrically braced frames because they can yield without buckling when subjected to both tension and compression loads. Though BRB frames are being widely used in construction industry especially for building structures in high seismicity areas such as Iran, it is shown that at large strains, a considerable amount of permanent deformation is generated at the support connector between the brace and the frame. This drawback can be overcome by providing recentering capabilities to the braced frame system. By applying the concept of a recentering system to the design of BRB frames, we used braced frames that incorporate BRBs with superelastic shape memory alloy (SMA). Also, the use of SMA in the bracing system causes damping and reduction of residual deformation. BRBs are considered as lateral load-bearing systems due to their non-buckling in compression. But these braces also have disadvantages. Among these disadvantages is the creation of permanent deformation in the structure after the end of loading and also the costly replacement of these members after the failure and current of the steel core of these braces. Therefore, the application of SMA in BRB systems, given the specific characteristics of these alloys, can be an effective step in improving seismic responses. However, recent studies have shown that BRB frames are susceptible to residual deformations during earthquakes which makes them vulnerable to aftershock events. The effectiveness of SMA-BRBs in controlling the seismic response of a structure largely depends on the relative strength and stiffness of SMA bars and BRB core plates. The aim of the current study is to investigate the aftershock collapse capacity of BRB frames with and without SMAs. In this paper, seismic behavior of frames with BRB’s and the effect of utilizing SMAs were studied. The selected models are three frames with 3, 6 and 9 story, which in different openings have BRBs in two states with and without applying shape memory alloys. These prototypes were modeled in OpenSees under nonlinear dynamic time history analyses. The results comparison was performed under three records including Main Shock-Aftershock Ground Motions. The results include comparing the seismic responses of structures with and without applying SMAs including maximum roof displacement, maximum interstory drift, maximum base shear, maximum acceleration of roof and hysteresis curves in structures with BRBs and SMAs rods. The results showed that by employing SMAs rods, seismic responses including roof displacement, interstory drift and base shear have been significantly reduced. By reviewing the results, it is clear that improvements in the 6 and 9-story frames compared to the 3- story frame is more tangible. Also, the analysis results showed by equipping the frames with SMAs, the energy dissipation concentration pattern has been changed. In the case of frames without SMAs, due to the greater absorption of lateral force (larger base shear), the amount of energy dissipation of BRBs was higher. In these frames, energy loss was in the first stories and in frames with SMAs, the energy dissipation concentration was in the final stories. Using a SMA in these frames can reduce the cost of restoring and recovering of damaged systems and make more resilience building system.

Keywords

Subjects

[1] Uang C.M., Tsai K.C. Research and application of buckling-restrained braced frames, Journal of Steel Structures 2004; 4(4): 301-13.
[2] Asgarian B, Moradi S. Seismic response of steel braced frames with shape memory alloy braces, Journal of Construction steel research 2011; 67(1): 65-74.
[3] Maurya A, Eatherton M.R., Ryota Matsui R., Florig, S.H. Experimental investigation of miniature buckling restrained braces for use as structural fuses, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2016; 127: 54-65.
[4] Ozcelik R., Dikiciasik E., Erdil F. The development of the buckling restrained braces with new end restrains, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2017; 138: 208-220.
[5] Shen J., Seker O., Akbas B., Seker P., Momenzadeh S.B., Faytarouni M. Seismic performance of concentrically braced frames with and without brace buckling, Structures 2017; 141: 461-481.
[6] Mirzahosseini, M., Gerami M. the Effect of Temperature on Seismic Response of Cu–Al–Mn SMA Braced Frame, International Journal of Civil Engineering 2018.
[7] Li H.N., Liu M.M., Fu X. An innovative re-centering SMA-lead damper and its application to steel frame structures, Smart Materials and Structures 2018.
[8] Gholhaki M., khosravikhor A., Rezayfar O. Study Effect of Ni-Ti Shape Memory Alloy on Ductility of Steel Plate Shear Walls. Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering 2018.
[9] Mirzai N., Attarnejad R. Performance of EBFs equipped with an innovative shape memory alloy damper, International Journal of Science & Technology 2018.
[10] Canxing Q., Yichen Z., Han L., Bing Q., Hetao H., Li T. Seismic performance of Concentrically Braced Frames with non-buckling braces, Engineering Structures 2018; 154: 93-102.
[11] Nazarimofrad E., Shokrgozar A. Seismic performance of steel braced frames with self‐centering buckling‐restrained brace utilizing superelastic shape memory alloys, Struct Design Tall Spec Build 2019.
[12] Rostam Alilou A. A. Pouraminian M. Seismic Fragility Assessment of RC Frame Equipped by Visco-Elastic Dampers Using NLTHA and FNA. American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2019; 12(3): 359-367.
[13] Sadeghi A., Hashemi S., Mehdizadeh K. Probabilistic Assessment of Seismic Collapse Capacity of 3D Steel Moment-Resisting Frame Structures. Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering 2020. (In Persian).
[14] Saberi V., Saberi H., Sadeghi A. Collapse Assessment of Steel Moment Frames Based on Development of Plastic Hinges, Journal of Science and Technology 2020. (In Persian).
[15] Mehdizadeh K., Karamodin A., Sadeghi A. Progressive Sidesway Collapse Analysis of Steel Moment-Resisting Frames under Earthquake Excitations. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng 2020; 44: 1209–1221.
[16] Pouraminian M., Hashemi S., Sadeghi A., Pourbakhshian S. Probabilistic Assessment the Seismic Collapse Capacity of Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames Equipped with Shape Memory Alloys. Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering. (In Persian).
[17] Saberi V., Saberi H., Mazaheri O., Sadeghi A. Numerical Investigation of Shape Memory Alloys and Side Plates Perforation Effect on Hysteresis Performance of Connections. Amirkabir Journal of Civil Engineering 2020. (In Persian).
[18] Hashemi S., Pouraminian M., Sadeghi A. Seismic Fragility Curve Development of Frames with BRB’s Equipped with Smart Materials subjected to Mainshock-Aftershock Ground Motion. Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering 2021. (In Persian).
[19] Taftali B. Probabilistic seismic demand assessment of steel frames with shape memory alloy connections, PhD. Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, َAtlanta. 2007.
[20] Han Y.L., Li Q., Li A.Q., Leung A. Lin P.H., Structural vibration control by shape memory alloy damper, Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics 2003; 32(3): 483-94.
[21] Mazzoni S., Mckenna F., Scott M.H., Fenves G.L. OpenSees Command Language Manual.
http://OpenSees.Berkeley.edu/OpenSees/manuals/user manual/OpenSees Command Language Manual June 2006.pdf.
[22] Miller D. J., Fahnestock L. A., Eatherton M. R. Development and experimental validation of a nickel–titanium shape memory alloy self-centering buckling-restrained brace, Engineering Structures 2012; 40: 288–298.
[23] INBC. Design Loads for Buildings. Tehran: Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Iranian National Building Code, Part 6. 2013. (In Persian).
[24] INBC. Design and Construction of Steel Structures. Tehran: Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Iranian National Building Code, Part 10. 2013. (In Persian).
[25] BHRC. Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings. Tehran: Building and Housing Research Centre, Standard No. 2800. 2014. (In Persian).
[26] Kim J., Park J., Lee T. Sensitivity analysis of steel buildings subjected to column loss, Engineering Structures 2011; 33(2): 421-432.
[27] Ruiz-Garcia J., Negrete-Manriquez J.C. Evaluation of drift demands in existing steel frames under as-recorded far-field and near-fault mainshock–aftershock seismic sequences, Engineering Structures 2010; 33(2): 621-634.
[28] PEER Ground Motion Database, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, Web Site: http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database.
[29] SeismoSignal. Constitutes a simple, yet efficient, package for the processing of strong-motion data. 2018.
[30] Commentary of Instruction for seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings NO: 361. 2007.
Modares Civil Engineering journal
Volume 21, Issue 4
September and October 2021
Pages 35-50