Earthquakes and Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

On the seismic response of steel buckling-restrained braced structures including soil-structure interaction

  • Flogeras, Antonios K. (Engineer Consultant) ;
  • Papagiannopoulos, George A. (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patras)
  • Received : 2016.12.01
  • Accepted : 2017.04.19
  • Published : 2017.04.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper summarizes estimated seismic response results from three-dimensional nonlinear inelastic time-history analyses of some steel buckling-restrained braced (BRB) structures taking into account soil-structure interaction (SSI). The response results involve mean values for peak interstorey drift ratios, peak interstorey residual drift ratios and peak floor accelerations. Moreover, mean seismic demands in terms of axial force and rotation in columns, of axial and shear forces and bending moment in BRB beams and of axial displacement in BRBs are also discussed. For comparison purposes, three separate configurations of the BRBs have been considered and the aforementioned seismic response and demands results have been obtained firstly by considering SSI effects and then by neglecting them. It is concluded that SSI, when considered, may lead to larger interstorey and residual interstorey drifts than when not. These drifts did not cause failure of columns and of the BRBs. However, the BRB beam may fail due to flexure.

Keywords

References

  1. AISC (2010), Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois.
  2. Androic, B., Dzeba, I. and Dujmovic, D. (2000), International structural steel sections, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Germany.
  3. Ariyaratana, C. and Fahnestock, L.A. (2011), "Evaluation of buckling-restrained braced frame seismic performance considering reserve strength", Eng. Struct., 33(1), 77-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.09.020
  4. Berman, J.W. and Bruneau, M. (2009), "Cyclic testing of a buckling restrained braced frame with unconstrained gusset connections", J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 135(12), 1499-1510. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000078
  5. Bosco, M. and Marino, E.M. (2013), "Design method and behavior factor for steel frames with buckling restrained braces", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 42(8), 1243-1263. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2269
  6. Bruneau, M., Uang, C.M. and Sabelli, R. (2011), Ductile design of steel structures, McGraw Hill, New York, USA.
  7. Carr, A.J. (2004), RUAUMOKO 3D - Inelastic dynamic analysis program: User's manual, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
  8. EC3 (2009), Eurocode 3 - Design of steel structures, Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels.
  9. EC8 (2004), Eurocode 8 - Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 5: Foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels.
  10. EC8 (2009), Eurocode 8 - Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels.
  11. Erochko, J., Christopoulos, C., Tremblay, R. and Choi, H. (2011), "Residual drift response of SMRFs and BRB frames in steel buildings designed according to ASCE 7-05", J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 137(5), 589-599. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000296
  12. Fahnestock, L.A., Ricles, J.M. and Sause, R. (2007), "Experimental evaluation of large-scale buckling-restrained braced frame", J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 133(9), 1205-1214. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:9(1205)
  13. Karavasilis, T.L., Kerawala, S. and Hale, E. (2012), "Hysteretic model for steel energy dissipation devices and evaluation of a minimal-damage seismic design approach for steel buildings", J. Constr. Steel Res., 70, 358-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.10.010
  14. Kiggins, S. and Uang, C.M. (2006), "Reducing residual drift of buckling-restrained braced frames as a dual system", Eng. Struct., 28(11), 1525-1532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.10.023
  15. Lin, P.C., Tsai, K.C., Wu, A.C. and Chuang, M.C. (2014), "Seismic design and test of gusset connections for bucklingrestrained braced frames", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 43(4), 565-587. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2360
  16. McManus, P.S., Macmahon, A. and Puckett, J.A. (2013), "Buckling restrained braced frame with all-bolted gusset connections", Eng. J., AISC, 50(2), 89-116.
  17. Mulliken, J.S. and Karabalis, D.L. (1998), "Discrete model for dynamic through-the-soil coupling of 3-d foundations and structures", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 27(7), 687-710. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199807)27:7<687::AID-EQE752>3.0.CO;2-O
  18. Newell, J.D. and Uang, C.M. (2008), "Cyclic behavior of steel wide-flange columns subjected to large drift", J. Struct Eng., ASCE, 134(8), 1334-1342. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:8(1334)
  19. Palmer, K.D., Christopulos, A.S., Lehman, D.E. and Roeder, C.W. (2014), "Experimental evaluation of cyclically loaded, largescale, planar and 3-d buckling-restrained braced frames", J. Constr. Steel Res., 101, 415-425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.06.008
  20. Richards, P.W. (2009), "Seismic column demands in ductile braced frames", J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 135(1), 33-41. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)135:1(33)
  21. Richards, P.W. and Miller, D.J. (2014), "High-yield-drift steel moment frames", Proceedings of the 10th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Anchorage, Alaska.
  22. Roy, J., Tremblay, R. and Leger, P. (2015), "Torsional effects in symmetrical steel buckling restrained braced frames: evaluation of seismic design provisions", Earthq. Struct., 8(2), 423-442. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.8.2.423
  23. Sabelli, R., Mahin, S. and Chang, C. (2003), "Seismic demands on steel braced frame buildings with buckling-restrained braces", Eng. Struct., 25(5), 655-666. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00175-X
  24. Sahoo, D.R. and Chao, S.H. (2015), "Stiffness-based design for mitigation of residual displacements of buckling-restrained braced frames", J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 141(11), 04014229-1-04014229-13. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001204
  25. Saxey, B. and Daniels, M. (2014), "Characterization of overstrength factors for buckling restrained braces", Proceedings of the Australasian Structural Engineering Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.
  26. SEAOC (2009), Seismic design recommendations, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California.
  27. Tsampras, G., Sause, R., Fleischman, R.B. and Restrepo, J.I. (2017), "Experimental study of deformable connection consisting of buckling-restrained brace and rubber bearings to connect floor system to lateral force resisting system", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., doi: 10.1002/eqe.2856/full.
  28. Wigle, V.R. and Fahnestock, L.A. (2010), "Buckling-restrained braced frame connection performance", J. Constr. Steel Res., 66(1), 65-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.07.014
  29. Zona, A. and Dall'Asta, A. (2012), "Elastoplastic model for steel buckling-restrained braces", J. Constr. Steel Res., 68(1), 118-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.07.017

Cited by

  1. Shaking table tests on braced reinforced concrete frame structure across the earth fissure under earthquake pp.15417794, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1559
  2. The effects of beam-column connections on behavior of buckling-restrained braced frames vol.28, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2018.28.3.309
  3. Effect of soil-structure interaction on seismic damage of mid-rise reinforced concrete structures retrofitted by FRP composites vol.15, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2018.15.3.307
  4. Seismic Response of Steel Structures with Properly Detailed Tension‐Only Steel Braces vol.3, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/cepa.1087
  5. Seismic response of dual structures comprised by Buckling-Restrained Braces (BRB) and RC walls vol.72, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2019.72.4.443
  6. Seismic Performance of Steel Structure-Foundation Systems Designed According to Eurocode 8 Provisions: The Case of Near-Fault Seismic Motions vol.10, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10040063
  7. Seismic pounding between adjacent buildings considering soil-structure interaction vol.20, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2021.20.1.055
  8. Slope topography effect on the seismic response of mid-rise buildings considering topography-soil-structure interaction vol.20, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2021.20.2.187