Incremental Dynamic Analysis of Mid-Rise Buildings with Buckling Restrained Brace Frame System under Pulse-Like Near-Fault Ground Motions

Document Type : Regular Paper

Authors

1 Department of Civil Engineering, Technical and Vocational University (TVU), Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Civil Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

3 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

Abstract

Buckling Restrained Braced Frames (BRBFs) are frequently utilized as seismic force-resisting systems due to their considerable ductility and energy dissipation capacity. While BRBFs have shown reliable seismic performance in extensive experimental and numerical studies under far-field ground motions, research on their performance under near-fault ground motions is limited. near-fault ground motions, characterized by short-duration pulses with high amplitudes, impose greater seismic demands on structures. This study conducts Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) on two 8- and 12-story BRBF structures under far-fault and near-fault ground motions. Comparison involves confidence intervals of average IDA curves rather than direct curve comparisons due to record selection uncertainty. At 99% confidence, no significant differences are observed. At 95% confidence, a minor difference is noted, while at 90%, substantial differences emerge, with confidence intervals indicating about a 25% difference for the 8-story and 75% for the 12-story structure. Residual drift comparisons show no significant difference at 99% confidence, a slight difference for the 12-story structure at 95%, and significant differences for both structures at 90% confidence. This suggests the importance of considering near-fault ground motions in assessing BRBF seismic performance, particularly for taller structures.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

[1]     Kimura K, Takeda Y, Yoshioka K, Furuya N, Takemoto Y. An experimental study on braces encased in steel tube and mortar. Annu. Meet. Archit. Inst. Japan (in Japanese), 1976.
[2]     Wakabayashi M, Nakamura T, Katagihara A, Yogoyama H, Morisono T. Experimental study on the elastoplastic behavior of braces enclosed by precast concrete panels under horizontal cyclic loading—Parts 1 & 2. Summ. Tech. Pap. Annu. Meet., vol. 6, Architectural Institute of Japan; 1973, p. 121–8.
[3]     Watanabe A, Hitomi Y, Saeki E, Wada A, Fujimoto M. Properties of brace encased in buckling-restraining concrete and steel tube. Proc. ninth world Conf. Earthq. Eng., vol. 4, 1988, p. 719–24.
[4]     Ahmad F, Phillips A. Buckling restrained braced frame seismic response for far-field, near-field, and long-duration earthquakes. J Constr Steel Res 2022;199:107625.
[5]     Black CJ, Makris N, Aiken ID. Component testing, seismic evaluation and characterization of buckling-restrained braces. J Struct Eng 2004;130:880–94.
[6]     Xie Q. State of the art of buckling-restrained braces in Asia. J Constr Steel Res 2005;61:727–48.
[7]     Carden LP, Itani AM, Buckle IG. Seismic performance of steel girder bridges with ductile cross frames using buckling-restrained braces. J Struct Eng 2006;132:338–45.
[8]     Castaldo P, Tubaldi E, Selvi F, Gioiella L. Seismic performance of an existing RC structure retrofitted with buckling restrained braces. J Build Eng 2021;33:101688.
[9]     Black C, Aiken ID, Makris N. Component testing, stability analysis, and characterization of buckling-restrained unbonded braces (TM). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center; 2002.
[10]   Merritt S, Uang C-M, Benzoni G. Subassemblage testing of corebrace buckling-restrained braces. La Jolla, Calif Univ California, San Diego 2003.
[11]   Usami T, Kasai A, Kato M. Behavior of buckling-restrained brace members. Stessa 2003, Routledge; 2018, p. 211–6.
[12]   Mirtaheri M, Gheidi A, Zandi AP, Alanjari P, Samani HR. Experimental optimization studies on steel core lengths in buckling restrained braces. J Constr Steel Res 2011;67:1244–53.
[13]   Chen Q, Wang C-L, Meng S, Zeng B. Effect of the unbonding materials on the mechanic behavior of all-steel buckling-restrained braces. Eng Struct 2016;111:478–93.
[14]   Aiken ID, Mahin SA, Uriz P. Large-scale testing of buckling-restrained braced frames. Japan Passiv. Control Symp., Tokyo Institute of Technology Yokohama, Japan; 2002.
[15]   Fahnestock LA, Ricles JM, Sause R. Experimental evaluation of a large-scale buckling-restrained braced frame. J Struct Eng 2007;133:1205–14.
[16]   Tsai KC, Hsiao BC, Lai JW, Chen CH, Lin ML, Weng YT. Pseudo dynamic experimental response of a full scale CFT/BRB composite frame. Proc., Jt. NCREE/JRC Work. Int. Collab. Earthq. Disaster Mitig. Res., 2003.
[17]   Lin ML. Bi-directional sub-structural pseudo-dynamic tests of a full-scale 2-story BRBF, Part 2: Compressive behavior of gusste plates. Proc. 8th US Natl. Conf. Earthq. Eng. 2006. 4, 2006.
[18]   Roeder CW. Seismic performance of special concentrically braced frames with buckling restrained braces. 8th Natl. Conf. Earthq. Eng. (8th NCEE), 2006. 4, 2006.
[19]   Sabelli R, Mahin S, Chang C. Seismic demands on steel braced frame buildings with buckling-restrained braces. Eng Struct 2003;25:655–66.
[20]   Tremblay R, Poncet L, Bolduc P, Neville R, DeVall R. Testing and design of buckling restrained braces for Canadian application. Proc. 13th world Conf. Earthq. Eng., 2004, p. 1–16.
[21]   Kiggins S, Uang C-M. Reducing residual drift of buckling-restrained braced frames as a dual system. Eng Struct 2006;28:1525–32.
[22]   Fahnestock LA, Sause R, Ricles JM. Seismic response and performance of buckling-restrained braced frames. J Struct Eng 2007;133:1195–204.
[23]   Naghavi M, Rahnavard R, Thomas RJ, Malekinejad M. Numerical evaluation of the hysteretic behavior of concentrically braced frames and buckling restrained brace frame systems. J Build Eng 2019;22:415–28.
[24]   Asgarkhani N, Yakhchalian M, Mohebi B. Evaluation of approximate methods for estimating residual drift demands in BRBFs. Eng Struct 2020;224:110849.
[25]   Asgarian B, Shokrgozar HR. BRBF response modification factor. J Constr Steel Res 2009;65:290–8.
[26]   Ariyaratana C, Fahnestock LA. Evaluation of buckling-restrained braced frame seismic performance considering reserve strength. Eng Struct 2011;33:77–89.
[27]   Lin P, Tsai K, Wang K, Yu Y, Wei C, Wu A, et al. Seismic design and hybrid tests of a full‐scale three‐story buckling‐restrained braced frame using welded end connections and thin profile. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2012;41:1001–20.
[28]   Alavi B, Krawinkler H. Strengthening of moment‐resisting frame structures against near‐fault ground motion effects. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2004;33:707–22.
[29]   Gerami M, Abdollahzadeh D. Vulnerability of steel moment‐resisting frames under effects of forward directivity. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 2015;24:97–122.
[30]   Yadav KK, Gupta VK. Near-fault fling-step ground motions: Characteristics and simulation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2017;101:90–104.
[31]   Baker JW. Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2007;97:1486–501.
[32]   Hoseini Vaez SR, Minaei Z. Pulse extraction of pulse-like ground motions based on particle swarm optimization algorithm. Sci Iran 2020;27:134–58.
[33]   Minaei Z, Vaez SRH, Dehghani E, Ezzati E. Quantitative modeling of pulse-like ground motions using imperialist competitive optimization algorithm. J Earthq Tsunami 2023;17:2350003.
[34]   Hoseini Vaez SR, Sharbatdar MK, Ghodrati Amiri G, Naderpour H, Kheyroddin A. Dominant pulse simulation of near fault ground motions. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2013;12:267–78.
[35]   Vafaei D, Eskandari R. Seismic response of mega buckling‐restrained braces subjected to fling‐step and forward‐directivity near‐fault ground motions. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 2015;24:672–86.
[36]   Du K, Cheng F, Bai J, Jin S. Seismic performance quantification of buckling-restrained braced RC frame structures under near-fault ground motions. Eng Struct 2020;211:110447. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110447.
[37]   Fang C, Zhong Q, Wang W, Hu S, Qiu C. Peak and residual responses of steel moment-resisting and braced frames under pulse-like near-fault earthquakes. Eng Struct 2018;177:579–97.
[38]   Shakouri A, Ghodrati Amiri G, Kaviani AA. Evaluation of near-field earthquake-induced pounding in building with friction pendulum bearing considering seismic gap of 360 standard. Civ Infrastruct Res 2023;9:125–40.
[39]   Majdi A, Mashayekhi M, Sadeghi-Movahhed A. Effect of Near-Fault Earthquake Characteristics on Seismic Response of Mid-Rise Structures with Triple Friction Pendulum Isolator. J Rehabil Civ Eng 2024;12:47–62.
[40]   Soltanmohammadi H, Mashayekhi M, Memarpour MM, Kontoni D-PN, Mirtaheri M. Exploring the Effect of Near-Field Ground Motions on the Fragility Curves of Multi-Span Simply Supported Concrete Girder Bridges. Infrastructures 2024;9:19.
[41]   Minaei Z, Vaez SRH, Dehghani E. An approach for estimating the response of steel moment resisting frames to pulse-like ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2021;151:106991.
[42]   Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2002;31:491–514. doi:10.1002/eqe.141.
[43]   BHRC Publication. Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings (Standard No. 2800). 2016.
[44]   OpenSEES T. Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSEES): ver. 3.2. 2 [DB]. Berkeley, CA Pacific Earthq Eng Res Cent (PEER), Univ Calif 2020.
[45]   Kalkan E, Kunnath SK. Effects of fling step and forward directivity on seismic response of buildings. Earthq Spectra 2006;22:367–90.
[46]   Kardoutsou V, Taflampas I, Psycharis IN. A new pulse indicator for the classification of ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2017;107:1356–64.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 10 May 2024
  • Revise Date: 24 December 2024
  • Accept Date: 14 January 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics