Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Drew Dudley
Page |2
Drew Dudley
apparent that these systems provide superior ductility, consistent and repeatable behavior, and have the tested capacity to sustain multiple major seismic events without significant degradation (Hussein et al). However, these systems require more material and are more costly to install compared to SCBFs and special moment resisting frames. The design of BRBFs must be in compliance with ASCE 7-10 and AISC 341. Some of the key specifications that must be met for BRBFs include: (1) the steel core shall be designed to resist the entire axial force in the brace (AISC 341-05), and (2) the buckling-restraining system shall limit local buckling and overall buckling of the steel core (AISC 341-05). The equation specified to determine the allowable axial strength, for the steel core, can be seen in Equation 1. Performing a linear elastic analysis of a BRBF is fairly simple, but special measures must be taken when performing a non-linear analysis. For both analyses a non-prismatic frame element may be utilized to model a BRB (Buckling Restrained Brace) (Hussein et al.).For a non-linear analysis, an axial nonlinear hinge must be assigned to the brace. Also, unlike conventional braced frames where section properties are readily tabulated by AISC, the section properties for BRBFs come directly from the various manufacturing companies. Incorporating such elements into the buildings computer model should be handled with some caution. Geometry, actual core yield lengths, and connections should be accurately considered and accounted for in the mathematical representation (Hussein et al.). Examples of BRBFs that have already been incorporated into real projects can be seen in Figure 5 and Figure 6.
Page |3
Drew Dudley
Page |4
Drew Dudley
issue in buildings where lateral bracing may not be feasible or easily provided (such as between two elevator shafts or along the faade of an open atrium) (Bruneau). Modeling of TEBFs for Berman and Bruneaus research was developed using the software package ABAQUS(finite element software) (Bruneau). This model was developed using four-node reduced integration shell elements and nonlinear material and geometry (Berman and Bruneau). Results from the ABAQUSmodel matched up closely with experimental results. The hysteresis curve comparing the model results to the experimental results can be seen in Figure 11. Based on their research Berman and Bruneau recommended design guidelines for TEBF. One such recommendation is that tubular links should have width-to-thickness ratios less than those specified in Equation 3.
Dissipative Connections
As mentioned earlier, the goal for the LLRS in a building is not only to remain safe and functional after a design earthquake, but also to be economical to construct and repair after an earthquake. Innovative dissipative (INERD) connections were designed to meet these guidelines. INERD connections when used in conjunction with a CBF, allow the frame members to remain elastic, because contrary to connections in conventional braced frames, which shall be stronger than the connected members and remain elastic, INERD connections shall be weaker than the connected members, exhibiting inelastic deformations and dissipating energy during seismic loading (Vayas et al). In the study performed by Vayas et al, two types of INERD connections were tested: pins and U connections. The pin connections were modeled in ABAQUS in order to study the monatomic and cyclic behavior (Vayas et al). Once the pin connection was designed, a full structure pushover analysis was performed. In the pushover analysis model, connections were introduced by means of tri-linear springs at the ends of the braces (Vayas et al). Based on the pushover analysis, braced frames incorporating INERD connections display advantageous behavior, under seismic loading. Some of these benefits include: more uniform distribution of floor drifts, and a greater post-ultimate stiffness. However, as expected the yield load of the frames decreases when INERD connections are provided (Vayas et al). Design recommendations for the design of an INERD pin connection can be seen Figure 12.
Project Implementation
For our structural studio project, I would implement the buckling restrained braced frame (BRBF) system. Reasons for choosing this system include: (1) the system has been through extensive research and has been tested in real life structures, with some estimates, as recent as 2008, that place the number of structures utilizing BRBFs at about 150 (Lopez), (2) BRBFs have already been adopted into the AISC code, which means that there are design guidelines that can be followed for adequate design, (3) BRBFs exhibit desirable behavior in regions of high seismic activity, and (4) BRBFs can be modeled in SAP2000 or ETABS, which are the software options that are available to us. While BRBFs would require more material and manpower for framing, costs would be reduced for the foundation, due to a lower base shear.
Page |5
Drew Dudley
Figures
(Hussein et al.)
Page |6
Drew Dudley
Page |7
Drew Dudley
Figure 11 Hysteresis Curve Comparing Finite Element Model Results to Experimental Results for a TEBF (Berman and Bruneau)
Page |8
Drew Dudley
Equations
Equation 1Allowable Axial Strength of Steel Core in BRBF
Page |9
Drew Dudley
References
American Institute of Steel Construction Inc. (2005). Seismic Design Manual (ASIC 327-05) American Institute of Steel Construction Inc. (2005).Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC 341-05). Asgarian B., Moradi S. (2010). Seismic Response of Steel Braced Frames with Shape Memory Alloy Braces Journal of Constructional Steel Research. 2011. Berman, J and Bruneau M. Development of Self-Stabilizing Links for Eccentrically Braced Frame 2007 Structures Congress: New Horizons and Better Practices. ASCE 2007. Bruneau, M. Innovations in Earthquake Resistance Steel Structures. Ninth Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. June 2007. Eatherton, M. and Hajjar J. and Ma X and Krawinkler H. and Deierlein G. Seismic Design and Behavior of Steel Frames with Controlled Rocking-Part I: Concepts and Quasi-Static Subassembly Testing. 2010 Structures Congress. ASCE 2010. Gray M.G., Christopoulos C., Packer J.A., Lignos D.G. Development, Validation and Modeling of the New Cast Steel Yielding Brace System Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. (2012). Hussain, Benscoten, Satari, Lin (2005). Buckling Restrain Braced Frame (BRBF) Structures: Analysis, Design and Approvals Issues. Coffman Engineers, Inc. Los Angeles, CA. Lopez, Walterio (2008). On Designing with Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames Structure Magazine. July 2008. McCormick, DesRoches, Fuguazza, Auricchio (2007). Seismic Assessment of Concentrically Braced Steel Frames with Shape Memory Alloy Braces. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering. June 2007. Sabelli, Rafael, and Lopez, Walterio.(2004). Design of Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames North American Steel Construction Conference. Vayas, I. and Thanopoulos P. and Plumier A. and Castiglioni C. and Caldo, Luis. Behavior of Seismic Resistant Braced Frames with Innovative Dissipative (INERD) Connections. EUROSTEEL, Conference 2005.