Flexible Frames as Self-Centering Mechanism for Buildings Having Buckling-Restrained Braces

Buckling-restrained braces have been found to be an efficient way to provide seismic-resistance to buildings. In spite of the many structural advantages they offer, several studies have found a lack of ability of buckling-restrained braces to promote a self-centering behavior. Under this circumstance, it has been suggested that the use of this type of braces should be complemented with robust moment-resisting frames with the purpose of reducing residual (permanent) drifts at the end of the main-shock excitation, and thus, the vulnerability of braced frames to aftershocks. Unlike previous studies, the results presented in this paper demonstrate that design strategies can be developed to achieve adequate self-centering behavior of buildings whose structural system is composed of flexible moment-resisting frames and buckling-restrained braces. Particularly, it is concluded that if the flexible frames provide at least one-sixth of the lateral stiffness of the dual structural system while remaining practically undamaged (operational) after the ground motion, the system will exhibit adequate self-centering behavior in spite of the fact that the bracing system may develop significant plastic behavior.

[1]  Eduardo MIRANDA,et al.  STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTORS FOR MULTI-DEGREE-OF-FREEDOM SYSTEMS , 1999 .

[2]  Alessandro Dazio,et al.  Simulating Maximum and Residual Displacements of RC Structures: I. Accuracy , 2011 .

[3]  Amador Teran-Gilmore,et al.  Preliminary Design of Low-Rise Buildings Stiffened with Buckling-Restrained Braces by a Displacement-Based Approach , 2009 .

[4]  Amador Teran-Gilmore,et al.  Displacement-Based Preliminary Design of Tall Buildings Stiffened with a System of Buckling-Restrained Braces , 2011 .

[5]  Eduardo Miranda,et al.  Evaluation of residual drift demands in regular multi‐storey frames for performance‐based seismic assessment , 2006 .

[6]  J. McCormick,et al.  PERMISSIBLE RESIDUAL DEFORMATION LEVELS FOR BUILDING STRUCTURES CONSIDERING BOTH SAFETY AND HUMAN ELEMENTS , 2008 .

[7]  Larry Alan Fahnestock,et al.  Evaluation of buckling-restrained braced frame seismic performance considering reserve strength , 2011 .

[8]  N. Null Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures , 2003 .

[9]  Edward Cohen,et al.  Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures , 1990 .

[10]  Akira Wada,et al.  Innovative Strategies in Earthquake Engineering , 2004 .

[11]  James M. Ricles,et al.  Seismic Response and Performance of Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames , 2007 .

[12]  Stephen A. Mahin,et al.  Seismic demands on steel braced frame buildings with buckling-restrained braces , 2003 .

[13]  Amador Teran-Gilmore,et al.  Comparative seismic performance of steel frames retrofitted with buckling-restrained braces through the application of Force-Based and Displacement-Based approaches , 2011 .

[14]  C. DAVISON,et al.  The Seismological Society of America , 1915, Nature.

[15]  Didier Pettinga,et al.  Effectiveness of simple approaches in mitigating residual deformations in buildings , 2007 .

[16]  STEFANO PAMPANIN,et al.  PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC RESPONSE OF FRAME STRUCTURES INCLUDING RESIDUAL DEFORMATIONS. PART II: MULTI-DEGREE OF FREEDOM SYSTEMS , 2003 .

[17]  Esra Mete Güneyisi,et al.  Seismic reliability of steel moment resisting framed buildings retrofitted with buckling restrained braces , 2012 .

[18]  Gaetano Della Corte,et al.  Development of a Displacement-Based Design Method for Steel Dual Systems With Buckling-Restrained Braces and Moment-Resisting Frames , 2010 .

[19]  Anne Deschamps,et al.  A Two-Stage Method for Ground-Motion Simulation Using Stochastic Summation of Small Earthquakes , 2005 .

[20]  Johnny Sun,et al.  Development of Ground Motion Time Histories for Phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC Steel Project , 1997 .

[21]  Chia-Ming Uang,et al.  Reducing residual drift of buckling-restrained braced frames as a dual system , 2006 .

[22]  Amador Teran-Gilmore,et al.  Comparative reliability of two 24‐story braced buildings: traditional versus innovative , 2013 .