Performance-Based Seismic Demand Assessment of Concentrically Braced Steel Frame Buildings

Author(s): Chen, Chui-Hsin | Advisor(s): Mahin, Stephen A | Abstract: The special concentrically steel braced frame (SCBF) system is one of the most effective struc-tural systems to resist lateral forces. Because of its effectiveness and straightforward design, many SCBFs are incorporated in structures throughout the world. However, the highly nonlin-ear behavior associated with buckling and non-ductile fracture of braces reduces the ability of the system to dissipate energy resulting in undesirable modes of behavior. While many studies have investigated the cyclic behavior of individual braces or the behavior of subassemblies, the dynamic demands on the structural system under various seismic hazard levels needs additional study for performance-based earthquake engineering. Archetype buildings of SCBFs and buckling restrained braced frames (BRBFs) were analyzed using the computer program OpenSees (the Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation) to improve the understanding of the seismic behavior of braced frame systems, and to assess seismic demands for performance-based design. Numerical models were calibrated using test data determined from testing of conventional buckling braces, buckling restrained braces, and the braced frame specimens. In addition, fiber-based OpenSees models were constructed and compared with results of a sophisticated finite-element model that realistically captured local buckling and local fracture of structural elements. Because the OpenSees models are reasona-bly accurate and efficient, they were chosen to perform set of parametric computer simulations. The seismic demands of the system and structural elements were computed and interpreted for 3-, 6-, and 16-story SCBFs and BRBFs under various hazard levels. The analysis results show large seismic demands for the 3-story SCBF, which may result in unexpected damage of struc-tural and non-structural elements. The median expected probability of a brace buckling at one or more levels in a 3-story SCBF is more than 50% for an earthquake having a 50% probability of exceedance in 50 years (the service-level event). The possible need to replace braces fol-lowing such frequent events due to brace buckling should be considered in performance-based earthquake engineering assessments. In addition, brace fracture in SCBFs is likely for an earthquake having a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (the MCE-level event). Analy-ses show that in general, BRBF models had larger drift demands and residual drifts compared to SCBF systems, because of the BRBF's longer fundamental period. However, the tendency to form a weak story in BRBFs is less than that in SCBFs. Evaluation of seismic demand parameters were performed for 2-, 3-, 6-, 12-, and 16-story SCBFs and BRBFs, which demonstrated that short-period braced frame systems, especially SCBFs, had higher probability of collapse than longer-period braced frame systems. Substantially improved response was observed by lowering the response reduction factor of the 2-story SCBF building; this reduced the collapse risk at the hazard level of 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years. For long-period (taller) structures, although the collapse probability was lower compared to the short-period structures, weak story behavior was commonly observed in conventionally designed SCBF. A design parameter related to the ratios of story shear demand and capacity under a pushover analysis is proposed to modify member sizes to reduce weak story behavior efficiently. This is demonstrated for a 16-story SCBF building. Regarding local deformation and force demands, simple methods to estimate out-of-plane buck-ling deformation of braces and column axial force demands are proposed. The investigation of system performance and member behavior provides seismic demands to more accurately assess the socio-economic losses of SCBFs and BRBFs for performance-based earthquake engineering.

[1]  Douglas A. Foutch,et al.  Seismic Evaluation of Steel Moment Frame Buildings Designed Using Different R -Values , 2006 .

[2]  Charles W. Roeder,et al.  Seismic Behavior of Concentrically Braced Frame , 1989 .

[3]  Farzad Naeim Performance of 20 extensively‐instrumented buildings during the 1994 Northridge earthquake , 1998 .

[4]  Michelle Terese Bensi,et al.  A Bayesian Network Methodology for Infrastructure Seismic Risk Assessment and Decision Support , 2010 .

[5]  Yuli Huang,et al.  Simulating the inelastic seismic behavior of steel braced frames including the effects of low-cycle fatigue , 2009 .

[6]  Vitelmo V. Bertero,et al.  EARTHQUAKE SIMULATOR TESTING OF CONCENTRIC BRACED DUAL SYSTEM , 1989 .

[7]  Jack P. Moehle,et al.  An application of peer performance-based earthquake engineering methodology , 2006 .

[8]  Subhash C. Goel,et al.  Brace Fractures and Analysis of Phase I Structure , 1989 .

[9]  Dawn E. Lehman,et al.  Test of a Full Scale Concentrically Braced Frame with Multi-Story X-Bracing , 2008 .

[10]  Stephen A. Mahin,et al.  EVALUATION OF STEEL STRUCTURE DETERIORATION WITH CYCLIC DAMAGED PLASTICITY , 2008 .

[11]  Pirooz Kashighandi,et al.  Demand fragility surfaces for bridges in liquefied laterally spreading ground , 2009 .

[12]  A. Dazio,et al.  UTILIZATION OF RESIDUAL DISPLACEMENTS IN THE POST-EAR HQUAKE ASSESSMENT , 2008 .

[13]  Eric M. Hines,et al.  Behavior and Design of Low-Ductility Braced Frames , 2007 .

[14]  J. Baker,et al.  Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection , 2006 .

[15]  Brent B Welch,et al.  Practical Programming in Tcl and Tk , 1999 .

[16]  L. Coffin,et al.  A Study of the Effects of Cyclic Thermal Stresses on a Ductile Metal , 1954, Journal of Fluids Engineering.

[17]  Brian Reichow,et al.  Translating Research to Practice , 2012, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.

[18]  Behrouz Asgarian,et al.  BRBF response modification factor , 2009 .

[19]  Michel Bruneau,et al.  Seismic design of steel buildings: Lessons from the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake , 1996 .

[20]  Darrell F. Socie,et al.  Simple rainflow counting algorithms , 1982 .

[21]  Chia-Ming Uang,et al.  Establishing R (or Rw) and Cd Factors for Building Seismic Provisions , 1991 .

[22]  Michel Bruneau,et al.  Energy Dissipation of Compression Members in Concentrically Braced Frames: Review of Experimental Data , 2005, Journal of Structural Engineering.

[23]  Grzegorz Glinka,et al.  Rainflow counting algorithm for very long stress histories , 1987 .

[24]  G. Martinez,et al.  INELASTIC CYCLIC TESTING OF LARGE SIZE STEEL BRACING MEMBERS , 2008 .

[25]  Hae In Kim Seismic evaluation and upgrading of braced frame structures for potential local failures. , 1992 .

[26]  Ben Kato,et al.  Seismic Performance of Steel Frames with Inverted V Braces , 1989 .

[27]  Douglas A. Foutch,et al.  Seismic Behavior of HSS Bracing Members according to Width–Thickness Ratio under Symmetric Cyclic Loading , 2007 .

[28]  Robert E. Kayen,et al.  Reinvestigation of Liquefaction and Nonliquefaction Case Histories from the 1976 Tangshan Earthquake , 2009 .

[29]  Charles A. Kircher,et al.  Seismic Performance Objectives for Tall Buildings A Report for the Tall Buildings Initiatve , 2008 .

[30]  H. Krawinkler,et al.  The Mexico Earthquake of September 19, 1985—Behavior of Steel Buildings , 1989 .

[31]  Amit Kanvinde,et al.  Earthquake-induced net section fracture in brace connections — experiments and simulations , 2010 .

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

[33]  Fahim Sadek,et al.  Progressive collapse analysis of seismically designed steel braced frames , 2009 .

[34]  Jeffrey A. Packer,et al.  Behaviour of gusset plate connections to ends of round and elliptical hollow structural section members , 2006 .

[35]  Rafael Riddell,et al.  Response Modification Factors for Earthquake Resistant Design of Short Period Buildings , 1989 .

[36]  Maged A. Youssef,et al.  Experimental evaluation of the seismic performance of modular steel-braced frames , 2009 .

[37]  Jinkoo Kim,et al.  Response modification factors of chevron-braced frames , 2005 .

[38]  Thambirajah Balendra,et al.  Overstrength and Ductility Factors for Steel Frames Designed According to BS 5950 , 2003 .

[39]  Jack W. Baker,et al.  Vector-valued ground motion intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand analysis , 2005 .

[40]  Michael H. Scott,et al.  Response sensitivity for nonlinear beam-column elements , 2004 .

[41]  H. W. Martin,et al.  Performance of Steel Structures in the September 19 and 20, 1985 Mexico Earthquakes , 1987 .

[42]  Dawn E. Lehman,et al.  Improved Seismic Performance of Gusset Plate Connections , 2008 .

[43]  Ahmed Y. Elghazouli,et al.  EARTHQUAKE TESTING AND RESPONSE ANALYSIS OF CONCENTRICALLY-BRACED SUB-FRAMES , 2008 .