Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

ISSN 2095-2430

ISSN 2095-2449(Online)

CN 10-1023/X

Postal Subscription Code 80-968

2018 Impact Factor: 1.272

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.    2016, Vol. 10 Issue (3) : 291-302    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-016-0340-3
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Performance assessment of innovative seismic resilient steel knee braced frame
Tony T. Y. YANG1,2(),Yuanjie LI2
1. International Joint Research Laboratory of Eearthquake Engineering, 1239 Siping Road, Shanghai 200002, China
2. Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada
 Download: PDF(749 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Buckling restrained knee braced truss moment frame (BRKBTMF) is a novel and innovative steel structural system that utilizes the advantages of long-span trusses and dedicated structural fuses for seismic applications. Steel trusses are very economical and effective in spanning large distance. However, conventional steel trusses are typically not suitable for seismic application, due to its lack of ductility and poor energy dissipation capacity. BRKBTMF utilizes buckling restrained braces (BRBs) as the designated structural fuses to dissipate the sudden surge of earthquake energy. This allows the BRKBTMF to economically and efficiently create large span structural systems for seismic applications. In this paper, a prototype BRKBTMF office building located in Berkeley, California, USA, was designed using performance-based plastic design procedure. The seismic performance of the prototype building was assessed using the state-of-the-art finite element software, OpenSees. Detailed BRB hysteresis and advanced element removal technique was implemented. The modeling approach allows the simulation for the force-deformation response of the BRB and the force redistribution within the system after the BRBs fracture. The developed finite element model was analyzed using incremental dynamic analysis approach to quantify the seismic performance of BRKBTMF. The results show BRKBTMF has excellent seismic performance with well controlled structural responses and resistance against collapse. In addition, life cycle repair cost of BRKBTMF was assessed using the next-generation performance-based earthquake engineering framework. The results confirm that BRKBTMF can effectively control the structural and non-structural component damages and minimize the repair costs of the structure under different ranges of earthquake shaking intensities. This studies conclude that BRKBTMF is a viable and effective seismic force resisting system.
Keywords buckling restrained brace      innovative structural system      collapse simulation      seismic assessment     
Corresponding Author(s): Tony T. Y. YANG   
Online First Date: 31 March 2016    Issue Date: 25 October 2016
 Cite this article:   
Tony T. Y. YANG,Yuanjie LI. Performance assessment of innovative seismic resilient steel knee braced frame[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2016, 10(3): 291-302.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-016-0340-3
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2016/V10/I3/291
floor BRB strength
[kips]		 column sizes truss chord
exterior interior top/bottom diagonal vertical*
4 172 W24×207 W24×229 2MC8×18.7 2MC6×12 L3.5×3.5×5/16
3 259 2MC10×25 2MC6×15.3 L3.5×3.5×5/16
2 312 W24×279 W24×306 2MC10×28.5 2MC6×15.3 L3.5×3.5×5/16
1 339 2MC10×28.5 2MC8×18.7 L3.5×3.5×5/16
Tab.1  Structural component sizes
Fig.1  Prototype building geometry. (a) Floor plan; (b) elevation plan
Fig.2  (a) Plastic mechanism; (b) truss capacity design; (c) column capacity design
Fig.3  BRB calibration
Fig.4  Element removal procedure
Fig.5  Seismic behavior comparison on element removal modeling
year event station Mw Vs30 distance to the fault (miles) scaling factor
(moment magnitude) (ft./s) 2/50 10/50 50/50
1976 Friuli, Italy Tolmezzo 6.50 1394.0 9.8 3.38 1.91 0.69
1976 Gazli, USSR Karakyr 6.80 2164.0 3.4 2.06 1.16 0.42
1978 Tabas, Iran Dayhook 7.35 2492.1 8.6 3.70 2.08 0.75
1984 Morgan Hill, US Coyote Lake Dam 6.19 2615.4 0.3 1.68 0.95 0.34
1984 Morgan Hill, US Gilroy Array 6.19 2176.2 6.2 3.33 1.87 0.68
1985 Nahanni, Canada Site 1 6.76 2164.0 6.0 3.01 1.70 0.61
1985 Nahanni, Canada Site 2 6.76 2164.0 3.0 4.54 2.56 0.92
1989 Loma Prieta, US BRAN 6.93 1233.9 6.6 1.96 1.11 0.40
1989 Loma Prieta, US Corralitos 6.93 1516.4 2.4 2.21 1.24 0.45
1989 Loma Prieta, US Saratoga-Aloha Ave 6.93 1516.4 5.3 4.06 2.29 0.83
1992 Cape Mendocino Cape Mendocino 7.01 1685.3 4.3 1.67 0.94 0.34
1992 Landers Lucerne 7.28 2247.0 1.3 4.27 2.40 0.87
1994 Northridge LA Dam 6.69 2063.6 3.6 3.62 2.04 0.74
1995 Kobe, Japan Nishi-Akashi 6.90 1998.0 4.4 3.01 1.70 0.61
1994 Northridge, US Sepulveda VA Hospital 6.69 1247.1 5.2 1.86 1.05 0.38
1994 Northridg, US LA Dam 6.69 2063.7 3.7 3.62 2.04 0.74
1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, China CHY006 7.62 1437.7 6.1 2.63 1.48 0.53
1976 Friuli, Italy Tolmezzo 6.5 1393.7 9.8 3.38 1.91 0.69
1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, China TCU078 7.62 1453.4 5.1 3.45 1.94 0.70
1999 Hector Mine, US Hector 7.13 2247.0 7.3 3.31 1.87 0.67
Tab.2  Summary of ground motions
Fig.6  Pushover analysis
Fig.7  Ground motion scaling. (a) Target spectrum; (b) ground motion scaling for 2/50 hazard
Fig.8  Peak structural response. (a) peak inter-story drift; (b) peak floor acceleration
Fig.9  Incremental dynamic analysis. (a) Dynamic response; (b) building fragility curve
PG No. PG Name EDP EDP description PG description
1 SH12 du1 inter-story drift between levels 1 and 2 structural: seismic-
force-resisting system
(displacement sensitive)
2 SH23 du2 inter-story drift between levels 2 and 3
3 SH34 du3 inter-story drift between levels 3 and 4
4 SH4R du4 inter-story drift between levels 4 and roof
5 EXTD12 du1 inter-story drift between levels 1 and 2 exterior non-structural
(displacement sensitive)
6 EXTD23 du2 inter-story drift between levels 2 and 3
7 EXTD34 du3 inter-story drift between levels 3 and 4
8 EXTD4R du4 inter-story drift between levels 4 and roof
9 INTD12 du1 inter-story drift between levels 1 and 2 interior non-structural
(displacement sensitive)
10 INTD23 du2 inter-story drift between levels 2 and 3
11 INTD34 du3 inter-story drift between levels 3 and 4
12 INTD4R du4 inter-story drift between levels 3 and roof
13 INTA2 a2 total acceleration at level 2 interior non-structural
(acceleration sensitive)
14 INTA3 a3 total acceleration at level 3
15 INTA4 a4 total acceleration at level 4
16 INTAR aR total acceleration at roof
17 CONT1 ag ground acceleration contents
18 CONT2 a2 total acceleration at level 2
19 CONT3 a3 total acceleration at level 3
20 CONT4 a4 total acceleration at level 4
21 EQUIPR aR total acceleration at roof rooftop equipment
22 GS12 du1 inter-story drift between levels 1 and 2 gravity system
(displacement sensitive)
23 GS23 du2 inter-story drift between levels 2 and 3
24 GS34 du3 inter-story drift between levels 3 and 4
25 GS4R du4 inter-story drift between levels 4 and roof
Tab.3  Summary of performance groups
repair component unit repair quantity unit repair cost
DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4 min. quantity max. cost max. quantity min. cost
structural performance group
??BRBs and connections ea 0 16 —– —– 3 $17000 7 $11600
??beams – column connections ea 0 2 24 24 6 $16640 24 $11100
??slab replacement ft2 * 0 1600 —– —– 100 $20 1000 $16
exterior non-structural performance group (displacement sensitive)
??erect scaffolding ft2 0 6000 6000 —– 1000 $2.5 10000 $2
??precast panels removal ft2 0 0 8400 —– 3000 $12 10000 $8
interior non-structural performance group (displacement sensitive)
??door and frame removal ea 0 8 8 —– 12 $40 48 $25
??carpet removal ft2 0 0 10000 —– 1000 $1.5 20000 $1
interior non-structural performance group (acceleration sensitive)
??furniture removal ft2 0 4000 10000 20000 100 $2 1000 $1.25
??ceiling system removal ft2 0 0 0 20000 1000 $2 20000 $1.25
contents
??papers/books ft2 0 0 10000 10000 1000 $0.1 10000 $0.06
??office equipment ft2 0 5000 10000 10000 1000 $0.06 10000 $0.04
rooftop equipment
??in situ repair 0 1 1 —– 1 $10000 2 $10000
??remove & replace 0 0 1 —– 1 $200000 2 $200000
Tab.4  Sample of repairable component costs for the structure
Fig.10  Fragility curves for performance groups (modified from Yang et al. [13]). (a) Structural PGs (BRB); (b) exterior drift sensitive non-structural PGs; (c) interior drift sensitive non-structural PGs; (d) interior acceleration non-structural PGs; (e) acceleration sensitive contents PGs; (f) roof equipment PGs; (g) gravity system PGs
Fig.11  Repair cost break down under 2% in 50 Yr. hazard. (a) 50/50 hazard level; (b) 10/50 hazard level; (c) 2/50 hazard level; (d) cumulative distributed cost function
Fig.12  Life cycle cost for prototype building
1 Wongpakdee N, Leelataviwat S, Goel S C, Liao W C. Performance-based design and collapse evaluation of buckling restrained knee braced truss moment frames. Engineering Structures, 2014, 60: 23–31
2 Yang T Y, Li Y, Leelataviwat S. Performance-based design and optimization of buckling restrained knee brace truss moment frame. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2014, 28(6): A4014007
3 Yang T Y, Li Y, Goel S. Performance evaluation of long-span conventional moment frames and buckling-restrained knee-braced truss moment frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2015, 142(1): 04015081
4 Goel S C, Chao S H. Performance-Based Plastic Design: Earthquake-Resistant Steel Structures. International Code Council, USA, 2008
5 PEER. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2000
6 Talaat M, Mosalam K M. Modeling progressive collapse in reinforced concrete buildings using direct element removal. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2009, 38(5): 609–634
7 ASCE. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. SEI/ASCE 7–10. Reston, VA, USA, 2010
8 UCB. U.C. Berkeley Seismic Guideline. University of California, Berkeley, 2003
9 Merritt S, Uang C M, Benzoni G. Subassemblage Testing of CoreBrace Buckling Resitrained Brace. Report No. TR-2003/01, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA, 2003
10 López W A, Sabelli R. Seismic design of buckling-restrained braced frames. Steel tips, 2004
11 PEER. PEER Strong Motion Database. University of California at Berkeley, 2010 ()
12 Vamvatsikos D, Cornell C A. Incremental Dynamic Analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2002, 31(3): 491–514
13 Yang T Y, Moehle J P, Stojadinovic B. Performance Evaluation of Innovative Steel Braced Frames – PEER Report 2009/103. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2009
14 Yang T Y, Moehle J P, Stojadinovic B, Der Kiureghian A. Seismic performance evaluation of facilities: Methodology and implementation. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2009, 135(10): 1146–1154
15 Applied Technology Council. Development of next-generation performance-based seismic design procedures for new and existing buildings, 2012 ()
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed