You are on page 1of 9

Page |1

Drew Dudley

Innovations in Braced Frame Design


Introduction
In the aftermath of the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, where subpar behavior was seen in many buildings utilizing steel moment frames as the lateral load resisting system (LLRS), the use of steel braced frames became more prevalent. Steel braced frames come in many varieties, but most can be placed into one of two categories; concentrically braced frames (CBF) and eccentrically braced frames (EBF). CBFs resist lateral forces and displacements primarily through the axial strength, and stiffness of their braced members. CBFs are arranged such that the centerlines of the framing members (braces, columns, and beams) coincide or nearly coincide, thus eliminating flexural behavior (AISC 327-05). Some typical configurations of CBFs can be seen in Figure 1. In EBFs lateral forces are resisted by a combination of the flexure, shear, and axial forces in the framing members. Eccentrically braced frames are essentially a hybrid system, offering lateral stiffness approaching that of a concentrically braced frame and ductility approaching that of a moment frame system. The general concept is that the centerline of a brace member coincides with the intersection of a beam-to-column joint at one end, with the other end intersecting the beam away from and adjacent beam or column (AISC 327-05). Typical configurations of EBFs can be seen in Figure 2. Braced frames are economical and functional in resisting a wide range of lateral loads; however, in Seismic Design Categories D, E, or F, special types of braced frames are needed to combat the cyclic loading induced in a large earthquake. Conventionally, these include Special Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs) and EBFs, both of which must adhere to special seismic requirements outlined in AISC 341. SCBFs and EBFs are prone to many non-ductile modes of behavior when subjected to large ductility demands (Sabelli and Lopez), and are expensive to retrofit or repair after an earthquake. In response to this, engineers and researchers across the world have developed innovative bracing systems which may be able alleviate some of the issues with conventional braced frame systems.

Buckling Restrained Braced Frame


One innovative brace system, which has seen rapid inclusion into seismic codes, is the BucklingRestrained Braced Frame (BRBF). BRBFs are a special class of concentric braced frame in which overall brace buckling is precluded at the required axial strengths associated with the Seismic Base Shear (Lopez). The main difference between BRBFs and SCBFs is in the bracing members. The bracing members in a BRBF consist of two major components: the steel core which resists axial stresses, and the outer concrete filled steel casing, which resists buckling stresses and restrains the steel core from buckling, thereby developing almost uniform axial strains in tension and compression (Hussain et al). Typical configurations of a buckling restrained brace can be seen in Figure 3. Exhibiting uniform strains in tension and compression gives BRBFs the advantage of avoiding premature failure, such as buckling of the compression braces, under cyclic loading. SCBFs do not exhibit uniform strain in compression and tension, which limits their ductility. An example of the full, balanced hysteretic behavior of a BRBF compared to a SCBF can be seen in Figure 4. Based on the hysteretic behavior of BRBFs, it becomes

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.

Braced Frame with Shape Memory Alloys


Braced frames incorporating shape memory alloys (SMAs) are another innovative bracing system that seeks to solve some of the issues with conventional braced frames. SMAs are a class of metallic alloys that display several characteristics not present in traditional civil engineering materials (McCormick et al.). These special characteristics allow braces with SMAs to develop flag-shape hysteresis under cyclic axial loading, which can provide both re-centering and supplemental energy dissipation to a structural system, resulting in limited inter-story drifts and decreases in permanent displacement of the structure (McCormick et al.) An example of the idealized SMA hysteretic behavior can be seen in Figure 7. An extensive study on the behavior of SMAs in steel braced frames was performed in 2010 by Asgarian and Moradi at the University of Technology in Tehran, Iran. This study tested the dynamic responses of 24 steel braced frames with various story numbers and types of bracing (Asgarian & Moradi). The types of bracing tested were: conventional concentrically braced frames, bucklingrestrained braced frames, and braced frames with SMAs. An example of the implementation of the SMAs in the steel brace can be seen in Figure 8. The results of this comparative study showed that shape-memory alloys could be effectively utilized for seismic design of structures. The study showed that whilebuckling-restrained braces possess a bigger energy dissipation capacity, some abilities of SMA elements such as re-centering and undergoing strain hardening, make these alloys desirable for vibration response reduction (Asgarian & Moradi). In the analysis of braces with SMAs, Asgarian and Moradi used OpenSees (Open System for Earthquake Engineering, which allows users to create finite element applications for simulating the response of structural systems subjected to earthquakes) to perform a non-linear time history analysis. In order to accurately model the behavior of the SMAs, constitutive models capturing the super-elastic behavior were implemented. To date, there is not substantial methodology for the design of braces with SMAs. While the future appears promising for SMAs in braced frames, more research is needed, before they can be implemented in real-life structures.

Page |3

Drew Dudley

Scorpion Yielding Braced System


Scorpion Yielding Braced System (YBS) is another innovative brace system that is still primarily in its research phase. The Scorpion YBS is a highly ductile device for seismic enhancement of concentrically braced frames (Gray et al). The Scorpion YBS consists of two castings which connect one end of a traditional wide flange brace member to a specially designed splice/gusset plate detail. The other end of the brace is connected to the opposite corner of the brace frame via a traditional gusset plate connection. Each end of the cast connectors consists of an elastic arm and several yielding fingers (Gray et al). An example of the Scorpion YBS system, which was tested at the University of Toronto, can be seen in Figure 9. In this system, seismic energy is dissipated by flexural yielding of the fingers, which provide a nearly perfect symmetric hysteretic response in tension and compression (Gray et al). By avoiding compression buckling of the bracing member, the Scorpion YBS allows for better performance under cyclic loading. Also, the Scorpion YBS exhibits distinct post-yield stiffness at large displacements (Gray et al), which helps avoid weak story mechanisms. An engineer designing YBS braces has the freedom to select a brace member that is stiffer, which will increase the assembly stiffness without changing the yield force of the brace. Thus, stiffness and strength can be independently adjusted to provide the desired structural performance (Gray et al). The elastic stiffness and the brace yield load for the Scorpion YBS system can be predicted from Equation 2. Repair of a Scorpion YBS requires minimal cost and time because only the flexural fingers experience inelastic deformation in a design earthquake. The flexural fingers are easily replaced by adding new castings to the brace.

Rocking Braced Frame


New innovations in steel bracing design strive to not only provide a safe design under seismic loads, but also make the systems economical to repair, and functional for the intended use,after a design earthquake. Researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign believe that a controlled rocking braced frame (RBF) meets all of these needs. The RBF system employs controlled frame rocking action and replaceable structural fuses to provide a safe and cost effective resistance to earthquakes (Eatherton et al). RBFs also use vertical post tensioning to increase overturning resistance and enhance the self-centering characteristics to reduce residual drifts (Eatherton et al). These unique features of the RBF allow the typical framing elements (beams, columns, braces) to remain elastic during a design earthquake. A typical RBF configuration can be seen in Figure 10. Researchers at the University of Illinois modeled the RBF in OpenSees. In order to create an accurate model, special items such as: springs to simulate the rocking of the column base, fiber sections to model the fuse element, and bi-linear elastic plastic constitutive relationships to model the post-tensioning strands were incorporated. Disadvantages to the RBF system include costly erection and obstructed paths, which limit the architectural design.

Tubular Braced Frame


Another innovative system that may alleviate some of the issues with eccentrically braced frames (EBF) is tubular eccentrically braced frames (TEBF). A TEBF is essentially an EBF with a tubular member used as the link. Traditionally, EBFs have used wide flange shapes for the link, which necessitates that they be braced out of the plane to prevent lateral torsional buckling (Berman and Bruneau). This becomes an

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

Figure 1 Typical Concentric Braced Frame Layouts (Lopez)

Figure 2 Typical Eccentric Braced Frames (Lopez)

Figure 3 Typical Buckling Restrained Brace

(Hussein et al.)

Page |6

Drew Dudley

Figure 4 BRBF vs. SCBF Hysteretic Behavior (Hussein et al)

Figure 5 BRBF Connection(Sabelli)

Figure 6 BRBF Real-Life Implementation (Sabelli)

Figure 7 Idealized SMA Behavior (McCormick et al.)

Figure 8 SMA Configuration (McCormick et al)

Page |7

Drew Dudley

Figure 9 Full Scale Scorpion YBS (Gray et al)

Figure 10 Typical RBF Configuration (Eatherton et al)

Figure 11 Hysteresis Curve Comparing Finite Element Model Results to Experimental Results for a TEBF (Berman and Bruneau)

Page |8

Drew Dudley

Figure 12 Design Recommendation INERD Pin Connection

Equations
Equation 1Allowable Axial Strength of Steel Core in BRBF

Equation 2YBS Stiffness & Brace Yield Load (Gray et al)

Equation 3 Width-to-Thickness Ratios TEBF

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.

You might also like